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 .
This office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed 2 July 2026, whereby the Amendment and Remarks filed 2 June 2026 were entered. Claims 1 and 3-15 remain pending and presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraph 12 in part (see the following paragraph ) of the previous FINAL office action on the merits, are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the same.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraph 13 of the previous FINAL office action on the merits, are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the same.
Applicant’s amendments have failed to satisfactorily address the rejection of claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 (in part), and 14-16 of the previous FINAL office action on the merits.
Applicants have amended the base independent claim 1 to recite:
PNG
media_image1.png
154
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added). The Examiner assumes that there is a typographical error and that amended claim 1 should recite “in a powder form”, in light of the amendment to claim 4:
PNG
media_image2.png
118
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added). Assuming arguendo that it was applicant’s intention to recite “from” in the phrase “in a powder from” (emphasis added), then said amendment introduces new considerations as follows under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as discussed in paragraph 16 herein. Assuming arguendo that it was applicant’s intention to recite “form” in the phrase “in a powder form” (emphasis added), then said amendment introduces new considerations as follows under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as discussed in paragraph 11 herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2026 in response to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraphs 12 (in part) and 13 of the previous FINAL office action on the merits, are moot as the aforementioned rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2026 in response to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 (in part), and 14-16 of the previous FINAL office action on the merits, said arguments to the effect that “the claims, as amended, particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter” which applicants regard as the invention, have been full considered, but are not persuaded. In addition to applicant’s amendment introducing new considerations as follows under each of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, please refer to the following paragraphs 15-20.
Upon further reconsideration, each of the rejection of claims over Sato et al. (‘096) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as set forth in paragraph 12 of the previous FINAL office action on the merits, as well as the rejection of claims on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, as set forth in paragraph 14 of the previous FINAL office action on the merits, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the optically-anisotropic layer in the powder from is measured by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy” (emphasis added); in this instance the Examiner assumes that applicant’s intended to recite “form” instead of “from”. Claim 4 has been amended to recite “the optically-anisotropic layer in the powder form is measured by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy” (emphasis added). Notwithstanding that the specification as originally filed does not support the invention as is now claimed, i.e.,
PNG
media_image3.png
283
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, while the optically-anisotropic layer of a liquid crystal diffraction element may be formed from composition containing components in powder form, the final anisotropic layer itself is not a loose powder, but instead a continuous cured film.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 3-15 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.
Amended claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a liquid crystal composition including at least one polymerizable liquid crystal compound, wherein the liquid crystal composition comprises a monofunctional polymerizable liquid crystal compound, the liquid crystal composition further comprises a polyfunctional polymerizable liquid crystal compound” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, amended claim 1 recites the broad recitation “liquid crystal composition including at least one polymerizable liquid crystal compound”, and the amended claim also recites “wherein the polymerizable liquid crystal composition comprises a monofunctional polymerizable liquid crystal compound, the liquid crystal composition further comprises a polyfunctional polymerizable liquid crystal compound” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Amended claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the polymerizable liquid crystal compounds required in the liquid crystal composition contained in the claimed liquid crystal diffraction element. The Examiner notes that this can easily be rectified by deleting the broad phrase “a liquid crystal composition including at least one polymerizable liquid crystal compound”.
Amended claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “the liquid crystal composition further comprises a polyfunctional polymerizable liquid crystal compound having two or more polymerizable groups” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear since, as the Examiner noted in the previous office action on the merits, a polyfunctional polymerizable liquid crystal compound by definition contains at least two polymerizable groups. Amended claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the liquid crystal composition contained in the claimed liquid crystal diffraction element.
Amended claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “the optically-anisotropic layer in the powder from is measured by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by what appears to be an incomplete phrase, i.e., in the powder from, is not clear. Amended claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystal diffraction element.
Amended claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “where an area of a peak having a maximum absorption point in a range of 2200 cm-1 to 2230 cm-1 of the optically-anisotropic layer is represented by A (cm-1), an area of a peak having a maximum absorption point in a range of 1630 cm-1 to 1640 cm-1 of the optically-anisotropic layer is represented by B (cm-1)” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by the arbitrary “an” area is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the area of the peak in each of “A”, “B” and subsequently “Expression (1)” and “Expression (2)” for the claimed liquid crystal diffraction element, much less the contents of the claimed liquid crystal diffraction element.
Amended claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a mass of the optically-anisotropic layer is represented by M (mg)” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by the arbitrary “a” mass is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim “M”, i.e., the mass of the optically-anisotropic layer in each of “Expression (1)” and “Expression (2)” for the claimed liquid crystal diffraction element.
Amended claim 4 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “when the optically-anisotropic layer in the powder form is measured by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, in art as there is insufficient antecedent basis for the optically-anisotropic layer “in the powder form“. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystal diffraction element.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure of an optically-anisotropic layer characterized by comprising a monofunctional polymerizable compound and a polyfunctional polymerizable compound: WIPO Patent No. WO 2025/047594 A1.
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