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 .
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 1-7 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claims 1-7 state “A method for controlling the spatial arrangement of domains of mesogenic compounds…”, however, the claims fail to set forth the steps required to performed the method. The claims are narrative in form and indefinite, failing to clearly distinguish a preamble, a transitional phrase and the steps constituting the inventive portion of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-7, claims 1-7 recite multiple instances of the term compounds, e.g., “mesogenic compounds” in claim 1, line 1; “a compound” claim 1, line 4; “a given compound” claim 1, line 5; “the melted compound”, claim 1, line 9; “organic compound” claim 2, line 4; and “an organic compound” claim 7, line 2, these limitations render the claims indefinite, since where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element multiple times, it is considered indefinite. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). The multiple instances of the term compound raise the issue of ambiguity, since it is unclear if each of these recited compounds are referring to the same compound or different compounds.
Regarding claims 1-7, claim 1-7 recite multiple instances of the term area, e.g., “the area of a thin film” claim 1, line 4; “a given area” claim 1, line 6; “the heated area”, claim 1, line 6; “the area with domains”, claim 4, line 3; “the crystallized area”, claim 5, line 3; “areas with a size”, claim 7, line 1; “illuminated area”, claim 7, line 2; “a selected area”, claim 7, line 5; “a given area”, claim 7, line 6; “the given area”, claim 7, line 11, these limitations render the claims indefinite, since where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element multiple times, it is considered indefinite. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). The multiple instances of the term area raise the issue of ambiguity, since it is unclear if each of these recited areas are referring to the same region or different regions.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the phrase “and/or” in lines 10 and 11, the phrase renders the claim indefinite since the claim terminology should be in the alternative only.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “then passes to the area with domains with undesired or mixed handedness, which as a result of chirality synchronisation initiates crystallisation of the domain with handedness in accordance with the selected, adjacent domain.” which is narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It is unclear how the claim language further limits the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably", in line 8, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “the degree of coverage is greater…” and “the degree of coverage is less…”, the recitations render the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the degree of coverage refers to, the size of the area covered by the illumination or the size of the area covered by the thin film.
The following limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims:
Claim 1, line 1, recites the limitation "the spatial arrangement".
Claim 1, line 4, recites the limitation "the area of a thin film".
Claim 1, line 5, recites the limitation "the isotropisation temperature”.
Claim 1, line 6, recites the limitation "the shape of the heated area".
Claim 1, line 7, recites the limitation "the crystallization front".
Claim 1, line 9, recites the limitation "the high absorbance".
Claim 1, line 9, recites the limitation "the melted compound".
Claim 1, line 12, recites the limitation "the high absorbance of a dye".
Claim 2, lines 1-2, recites the limitation "the temperature of the thin organic film".
Claim 2, line 2, recites the limitation "the thin organic film".
Claim 2, line 2, recites the limitation "the temperature to which the film is preheated".
Claim 2, line 2, recites the limitation "the temperature of the phase transition".
Claim 2, lines 3-4, recites the limitation "the organic compound".
Claim 2, line 4, recites the limitation "the isotropic phase”.
Claim 4, line 2, recites the limitation "the selected domain”.
Claim 4, line , recites the limitation "the area with domains”.
Claim 4, lines 2-3, recites the limitation "the desired handedness”.
Claim 4, lines 5-6, recites the limitation "the selected adjacent domain”.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, recites the limitation "the crystallized area”.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, recites the limitation "the crystallized area”.
Claim 7, lines 2-3, recites the limitation "the crystallized area”.
Claim 7, line 6, recites the limitation “the enantiomeric excess”.
Claim 7, line 7, recites the limitation "the sample”.
Claim 7, lines 8 and 9, recites the limitation "the degree of coverage”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (WO 2017181771 A1) discloses a method comprising the steps of: coating a layer of laser irradiation deformation layer on a nematic liquid crystal polymer film having a chiral helical structure; and radiating the laser irradiation deformation layer with a pulsed laser.
Fukushima et al. (US 2023/0176252 A1) discloses an optically anisotropic layer formed of a liquid crystal compound, in which the optically anisotropic layer contains a leveling agent and satisfies a predetermined requirement in a profile of a secondary ion intensity derived from the leveling agent in a depth direction, which is obtained by analyzing components of the optically anisotropic layer in a depth direction by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry while irradiating the optically anisotropic layer with an ion beam from one surface of the optically anisotropic layer to the other surface of the optically anisotropic layer.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 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, James R. Greece, can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights