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, 3-4, 7, 9, 11 and 13 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 recites the limitation, “refractive anisotropy of the additive is less than refractive anisotropy of the cholesteric liquid crystal”. Claim 11 recites the limitation, “refractive anisotropy of the additive is less than refractive anisotropy of each of the first liquid crystal layer and the third liquid crystal layer”. However, the liquid crystal layer comprises the additive and a cholesteric liquid crystal, and this it is unclear how the additive can have a less refractive anisotropy that itself. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the limitations to mean that the refractive anisotropy of the additive is less than the average refractive anisotropy of the entire liquid crystal layer (i.e., the combination of the cholesteric liquid crystal and the additive.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 6,589,445) in view of Um et al. (US 2020/0218109).
Re claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a liquid crystal optical element (Fig. 1c) comprising: a transparent substrate (10); and a liquid crystal layer which faces the transparent substrate and has a cholesteric liquid crystal (col. 32, line 14) and an additive exhibiting a liquid crystalline property (col. 11, lines 61-65), wherein the refractive anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer is of 0.1 to 0.40 (col. 22, lines 16-19). Sugiyama does not disclose a refractive index of the additive being less than refractive anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer.
Um disclose a liquid crystal optical element (see figure 1), a refractive anisotropy of the additive being less than 0.5 (paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein a refractive index of the additive being less than refractive anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer since one would be motivated by improving optical properties of the cholesteric liquid crystal material (paragraph 0139). Examiner submits that a refractive index anisotropy of less than 0.5 comprises values less than 0.40, which would be less than the refractive index anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer.
Re claim 2, Sugiyama discloses a liquid crystal optical element (Fig. 1c) comprising: a transparent substrate (10); and a liquid crystal layer (6) which faces the transparent substrate and has a cholesteric liquid crystal (col. 32, line 14) and an additive exhibiting a liquid crystalline property (col. 11, lines 61-65), wherein the refractive anisotropy of the cholesteric liquid crystal material is of 0.1 to 0.40 (col. 22, lines 16-19). Sugiyama does not disclose a refractive index of the additive being less than refractive anisotropy of the cholesteric liquid crystal.
Um disclose a liquid crystal optical element (see figure 1), a refractive anisotropy of the additive being less than 0.5 (paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein a refractive index of the additive being less than refractive anisotropy of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer since one would be motivated by improving optical properties of the cholesteric liquid crystal material (paragraph 0139). Examiner submits that a refractive index anisotropy of less than 0.5 comprises values less than 0.40, which would be less than the refractive index anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer.
Re claims 3 and 5, Sugiyama discloses the device wherein the additive is formed of one of a nematic liquid crystal material and a smectic liquid crystal material (column 21, lines 16-29).
Re claims 4 and 6, Sugiyama does not disclose the device wherein the additive is formed of an alkoxycyclohexylcyclohexane-based material, a cyclohexylcyclohexanevinyl-based material, an alkylphenylcyclohexane-based material, an alkoxyphenylcyclohexane-based material, a fluorophenylcyclohexane-based material or a cyanophenylcyclohexane-based material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the additive is formed of an alkoxycyclohexylcyclohexane-based material, a cyclohexylcyclohexanevinyl-based material, an alkylphenylcyclohexane-based material, an alkoxyphenylcyclohexane-based material, a fluorophenylcyclohexane-based material or a cyanophenylcyclohexane-based material. Sugiyama et al. discloses the device wherein the material has features that can control orientation structure of a crystalline compound and can cause change of helical pitch (col. 12, lines 12-24). Therefore, obtaining the device wherein the additive is formed of an alkoxycyclohexylcyclohexane-based material, a cyclohexylcyclohexanevinyl-based material, an alkylphenylcyclohexane-based material, an alkoxyphenylcyclohexane-based material, a fluorophenylcyclohexane-based material or a cyanophenylcyclohexane-based material to obtain features that can control orientation structure of a crystalline compound and can cause change of helical pitch is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art.
Re claims 9 and 10, Suigyama discloses a device wherein refractive index anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer is greater than 0.1 (col. 22, lines 16-19), but does not disclose the device wherein the refractive index anisotropy of the additive is less than 0.1.
Uma et al. discloses a device wherein the refractive index of the additive is less than 0.1 (paragraph 0012). A range of less than 0.5 comprises a value of less than 0.1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the refractive index anisotropy of the additive is less than 0.1 since one would be motivated by improving optical properties of the cholesteric liquid crystal material (paragraph 0139).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. and Um et al., in view of Umemoto et al. (US 6,459,461).
Sugiyama does not disclose the device wherein a helical pitch of the cholesteric liquid crystal is greater than or equal to 200 nm and less than or equal to 450 nm.
Umemoto discloses a liquid crystal optical element (Fig. 1), wherein a helical pitch of the cholesteric liquid crystal is greater than or equal to 200 nm but less than or equal to 450 nm (col. 9, lines 15-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein a helical pitch of the cholesteric liquid crystal is greater than or equal to 200 nm and less than or equal to 450 nm since one would be motivated to prevent variation in the polarized light, thereby increasing the quantity of light in a utilized state (col. 9, lines 23-29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 allowable over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 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, 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights