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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 20th, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (now encompassing claims 1-16) in the reply filed on July 20th, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the current amendments to claims 15 and 16 resolve the present restriction requirement, as claims 15 and 16 no longer depend from claim 1. The Examiner agrees that claims 15 and 16 are not withdrawn. However, technically, Applicant’s argument that the restriction requirement is no longer proper is not found persuasive. For clarity, claims 15 and 16 were amended such that they are now in Group I (i.e., the statutory category of invention has been changed via amendment). Claims 15 and 16 are now product claims, and not composition claims. The claimed polymerizable compositions are still restricted – however, no claims directed to the compositions of Groups II and II are present. Arguments as to why the composition and product are not independent and distinct have not been presented. The restriction requirement with respect to Groups I and IV is still maintained as well, as the present arguments do not appear to allege restriction between these groups as improper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “(ne-no)” without appropriate subscripts. The phrase should be changed to “(ne-no)”. It is noted that (ne-no) is colloquially known in the art as a birefringence, or Δn. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 recites the phrase “positive dispersion type”, but per MPEP 2173.05(b), III, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. The present specification does not provide a clarifying definition for the phrase “positive dispersion type”. It is not clear what structural features, specifically, render a liquid crystal “positive dispersion type”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase will be interpreted as describing a “positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal”.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 recite the phrase “the orientation angle”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is additionally noted that the claim does not define a particular coordinate system. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase will be interpreted as directed to “an orientation angle”.
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 recite the phrase “the twist angle”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is additionally noted that the claim does not define a particular coordinate system. The claims also use the phrase “the twist angle” in a manner which conflicts with the present specification. The present specification refers to a total twist angle as a property of a group of liquid crystal molecules (i.e., the total twist created by the group of liquid crystal molecules). The term “total” means “total across multiple molecules”, as best understood (i.e., it is not clear if a single molecule is capable of generating a total twist angle according to the claims). In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase will be interpreted as directed to “a total twist angle” with respect to a group of liquid crystal molecules.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “the value”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a value”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 10-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriya et al (WO2021193825A1). Moriya is read from its English language equivalent, US2023/0037751A1, which has been placed in the Application file.
With regards to claim 1, Moriya discloses a phase difference film comprising a laminate made of a positive A-plate and a positive C-plate, each made of rod-shaped crystalline materials to which chiral agents are added (i.e., a phase difference film comprising a first film layer and a second film layer sequentially stacked, the first film layer A formed by adding a chiral agent toa positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal, and the second film layer is a C film formed by a positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal) (Moriya: para. [0008], [0082], [0219], [0222], [0240], and [0259]). Each of the films are considered “spiral films” as they provide a twisted nematic mode at a specific twist-aligned angle (i.e., as best understood in the art to be “spiral films”, and based on the further claims and present specification, twist-aligned films are species of such spiral films) (Moriya: para. [0334]-[0335]). Although Moriya is not explicit as to a third film layer in the form of a spiral film formed by adding a chiral agent to a positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal, Moriya teaches that additional optically-anisotropic layers (i.e., positive A-plates or positive C-plates) may be added to the laminate (i.e., as best understood, additional positive A-plates or positive C-plates may be sequentially stacked to either side of Moriya’s disclosed laminate) (Moriya: para. [0259]). Moriya further teaches that the positive A-plate specifically acts to provide view compensation (Moriya: para. [0245). At the outset, Moriya identifies a set of predictable solutions (namely, that additional positive A plates or positive C plates may be added), and in adding an additional film to the second film layer C, a person of ordinary skill would recognize a finite number of such solutions (see above discussion. Specifically, either an additional positive A plate, or a positive C plate must be added, the positive A plate meeting the structure of the claims. In other words, one of two taught solutions meets the present claim, and therefore, the claimed configuration is considered obvious-to-try by a person of ordinary skill (see above discussion). However, a person of ordinary skill would have additionally found it obvious to have added an additional positive A plate, such that the claimed configuration is formed, in order to provide improved view compensation (see above discussion).
With regards to claims 2-3 and 10-11, none of the claims establish a coordinate system for establishing a viewing angle. It is submitted that, for a rod-shaped liquid crystal molecule (such as those in the material in each of the films of Moriya), a coordinate system may be arbitrarily specified, such that an angle falling in the claimed ranges is produced. The present claim language is atypical within the art, as it is customary in the art to specify either a coordinate system or a means of otherwise anchoring an angle (i.e., for example, in paragraphs [0290]-[0294], Moriya defines its measurement angle with respect to an angular difference between plates). It is additionally noted that, per claims 2-3, a liquid crystal molecule on the side of the first film layer is “away” from the second film layer, since it is not a part of the second film layer, and similarly, per claims 10-11, a liquid crystal molecule on a side of the third film layer is away from the first film layer, in that it is not a part of the first film layer. In the interest of compact prosecution, even if the term “away” were further refined to indicate an angle of orientation with respect to thickness direction (i.e., as in, reciting a liquid crystal molecule oriented an angle perpendicular to a thickness direction), the claim still does not define a coordinate system, and therefore, the claimed angle could still be met by arbitrary selection of a suitable coordinate system.
With regards to claim 4, Moriya discloses a total twist angle of its molecules ranging from 60 degrees to 120 degrees, which overlaps the claimed range of -60 degrees to 60 degrees (i.e., at least contacting an endpoint) (Moriya: para. [0334]-[0335]). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 5, Moriya discloses a total twist angle of its molecules ranging from 60 degrees to 120 degrees, which overlaps the claimed range of 40 degrees to 60 degrees (i.e., at least contacting an endpoint) (Moriya: para. [0334]-[0335]). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 6, Moriya teaches the relationship (nx-ny) x d (i.e., equivalent to ne-no times thickness) which is measured at a wavelength of 550 nm, the relationship having a value of 100 to 180 nm for the positive A-plate (i.e., for the first film layer) (Moriya: para. [0242]-[0245]). This range overlaps the claimed range of 150 nm to 450 nm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 12, Moriya discloses a total twist angle of its molecules ranging from 60 degrees to 120 degrees, which overlaps the claimed range of -70 degrees to 200 degrees Moriya: para. [0334]-[0335]). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 13, Moriya discloses a total twist angle of its molecules ranging from 60 degrees to 120 degrees, which overlaps the claimed range of -170 degrees to 200 degrees Moriya: para. [0334]-[0335]). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 14, Moriya teaches the relationship (nx-ny) x d (i.e., equivalent to ne-no times thickness) which is measured at a wavelength of 550 nm, the relationship having a value of 100 to 180 nm for the positive A-plate (i.e., for the third film layer) (Moriya: para. [0242]-[0245]). This range overlaps the claimed range of 100 nm to 370 nm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 7-9 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a list of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record are Moriya (WO2021193825A1, as read from US2023/0037751A1) and Kuwana (WO2018047806A1, as read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the application file.
Regarding claims 7-9 with respect to the Moriya reference, Moriya requires a value ne-no times thickness at a wavelength of 550 nm for its positive A-plate (i.e., first film layer) of 100 to 180 nm, and similarly, a value of ne-no times thickness at a wavelength of 550 nm for its positive C-plate (i.e., second film layer) of -160 to -10 nm. These ranges are outside the ranges required by claims 7-9. Moriya teaches that narrower ranges which are further outside the claimed ranges provide improved view angle compensation and reduced light leakage. In addition to failing to disclose the claimed ranges, Moriya explicitly directs a person of ordinary skill away from the claimed ranges. In other words, Moriya teaches away from the ranges as claimed.
Regarding claim 7 with respect to the Kuwana reference, Kuwana teaches a value ne-no times thickness at a wavelength of 550 nm for its positive A-plate of 30 to 500 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm. However, the Kuwana reference requires a negative C plate, as opposed to a positive C plate (i.e., a positive C film). Kuwana further teaches its required laminate structures, none of which include a spiral A film having a positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal, a C film formed by a positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal, and an additional spiral A film formed by adding a chiral agent to a positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal, sequentially stacked. Kuwana specifically teaches positive C films (i.e., C films having positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal) as not preferable, since it can adversely affect rubbing treatments known in the art. In other words, Kuwana teaches away from the limitations of claim 1, which are required by claim 7.
Regarding claims 8-9 with respect to the Kuwana reference, Kuwana does not disclose any particular values for ne-no times thickness at a wavelength of 550 nm for its C-plate. Though, it is further noted that the Kuwana reference requires a negative C plate, as opposed to a positive C plate (i.e., a positive C film). Kuwana further teaches its required laminate structures, none of which include a spiral A film having a positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal, a C film formed by a positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal, and an additional spiral A film formed by adding a chiral agent to a positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal, sequentially stacked. Kuwana specifically teaches positive C films (i.e., C films having positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal) as not preferable, since it can adversely affect rubbing treatments known in the art. In other words, Kuwana teaches away from the limitations of claim 1, which are required by claims 8-9.
Regarding claims 15-16 with respect to the Moriya reference, Moriya discloses a compound similar formula I (i.e., including the claimed B and C groups, claimed spacers, claimed carbonyl linkage between group A and group B, claimed carbonyl linkage between group A and group C, and claimed polymerizable groups). However, the group A of Moriya must be selected from one of Ar-1 through Ar-7 (at least for the embodiment comprising the claimed carbonyl linkages). The base molecule for group A is a cyclohexylene, phenylene, or napthylene, which implies the presence of hydrogen atoms, except for those substituents allowed by a number “c” of L1 groups. Each of Ar-1 through Ar-7 of Moirya include L1 groups not meeting the present claims. With further regards to claim 16, specifically, Moriya fails to disclose compounds according to formulas III and IV.
Regarding claims 15-16 with respect to the Kuwana reference, Kuwana appears to disclose the compounds as claimed. However, Kuwana uses the present compounds in the context of a phase difference film wherein a C film is a negative dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal. Kuwana specifically teaches positive C films (i.e., C films having positive dispersion rod-shaped liquid crystal) as not preferable, since it can adversely affect rubbing treatments known in the art. In other words, Kuwana teaches away from the limitations of claim 1, which are required by claims 8-9. Therefore, Kuwana teaches against the use of its material in forming a positive C film, or used in a laminate containing a positive C film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
