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 .
Claims 1-14 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 9 have been currently amended. Claim 14 has been added as new.
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 3, 7, 8 and 13 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 3 recites “ The liquid-crystalline medium according to claim 1, comprising one or more compounds of the formula II. However, applicants failed to define or show a compound represented by formula II. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “ The liquid-crystalline medium according to claim 1, comprising one or more compounds of the formulae VI, VII, VIII, or IX. However, applicants failed to define or show compounds of the formulae VI, VII, VIII, or IX. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “ the total concentration the compounds of formula I in the medium..” However, the claim as written is indefinite and confusing. It is unclear if the medium of the instant claims may contained only one compound or more than one compounds. Independent claim 1 recites “one or more compounds of formula 1”; therefore, appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “ the one or more compounds of formula 1”.
Claim 13 recites “ A process for the preparation of a liquid-crystalline medium according to claim 1, comprising mixing one or more compounds of formula 1 with one or more compounds of the formulae II, III and VI to IX. However, applicants failed to define or show compounds of the formulae II, VI to IX. Also, the medium of claim 13 recites compounds outside the scope of claim 1. Therefore, the claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2 recites “ The liquid crystalline medium according to claim 1, comprising one or more compounds of the formula III.”; however, claim 1 recites “ A liquid crystalline medium having nematic phase, the medium comprising … and one or more additional compound of formula III. Therefore, claim 2 does not further limit claim 1. Claim 2 repeats same limitation recited in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laut et al. ( TW 202235593 Al ; citations from USPGPUB 2024/0376382 A1 for English Translation).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 8 and 10-14 , Laut et al. teach a liquid-crystalline medium having a nematic phase ( see abstract, claims and examples) , the medium comprising 5 to 50% by weight of one or more compounds of formula I ( see Compound of formula II
PNG
media_image1.png
125
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0063-0069] wherein X2 denotes F or -OCF3 [0068] , more preferably formulae II-1a and II-1e [0171 ] in an amount of 2-60% by weight [0289 and 0303]) and one or more additional compounds of formula III ( see one or more compounds of Formula B [0054-0061] or formula I wherein n =0 [0270-0275]). The medium further comprises a compound represented by formulae II-1 i-1 and III-1 i-2 [0201-0202] meeting the limitation of formula V. Laut et al. further disclose the medium further comprises one or more compounds selected from one or more formulae II and VI to IX ( see formula IC [0391-0398]). Laut et al. teach an electro-optical lens or electro-optical display comprising a liquid crystalline medium ( abstract and [0039]) as well as an optical display [0315]. Laut et al. teach a process for the preparation of a liquid-crystalline medium comprising mixing one or more compounds of formula I with one or more compounds selected from formula III ( examples and [0152]).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laut et al. ( WO 2021/148421 A).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 8 and 10-14 , Laut et al. teach a liquid-crystalline medium having a nematic phase ( see abstract, claims, examples e.g. Mixture N-21)
PNG
media_image2.png
362
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein PUQU-3-F in an amount of 14.5% meeting the limitation of formula (1) in an amount of 5 to 50% by weight as recited in claim 1 and 10 to 35% by weight as recited in claim 8 and B(S)-2O-O4 in 4.0% and B(S)-2O-O5 in 3.0% meeting the limitation of one or more additional compound of formula III as instantly claimed. Laut et al. further teaches the medium comprises CC-3-V meeting the limitation of formula IV, CCP-V-1 meeting the limitation of formula V and CPY-3-O2 meeting the limitation of formula VII as instantly claimed. Laut et al. teach a process for the preparation of a liquid-crystalline medium comprising mixing one or more compounds of formula I with one or more compounds of formulae II, II and VI to IX ( example and claim 15).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Junge et al. (WO 2020/104563 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-14 , Junge et al. teach a liquid-crystalline medium having a nematic phase ( see abstract, claims, page 84, line 5-16 and Examples), the medium comprising 5 to 50 % by weight of one or more compound of formula (I) ( see Formula IIa and Formula III in an amount of 10-40% by weight ( page 158, lines 21-25)) , wherein X20 each denotes F, CN, NCS, or SCN on page 136-138 , more specifically formula IIIb when X20 is CN meeting the limitation of formula I-13 as recited in claim 5 and formula 1 in claim 1 or CCQU-3-F in 10.0% or CCUQU-5-F in 11.0% in reference example 4 meeting the limitation of formula I in claim 1) and one or more additional compounds represented by formula BF and BSF ( see page 129, lines 25-35) meeting the limitation of formula III as instantly claimed. Junge et al. further teaches the medium comprises CY ( page 88, line 25) meeting the limitation of formula IV, PY ( page 88, line 30) meeting the limitation of formula V or PTP-1-O2 or PTP-2-O1 ( see page 219, reference example 7) meeting the limitation of formula V and formula V-7 and LY ( page 102, lines 5-25) meeting the limitation of formulae V1, VII and/or VIII as instantly claimed. Junge et al. teach a process for the preparation of a liquid-crystalline medium comprising mixing one or more compounds of formula I with one or more compounds of formulae II, II and VI to IX ( example and claims ).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laut et al. ( TW 202235593 Al ; citations from USPGPUB 2024/037638 A1 for English Translation) and/or Laut et al. ( WO 2021/148421 A) and/or Junge et al. (WO 2020/104563 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brocke et al. (WO 2021/037962 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, neither Laut et al.’638 nor Laut et al. ‘962 or Junge et al. teach wherein Z1 is -C≡C- and X1 is CN or SCN in the one or more compounds of formula I as recited by instant claim 6. However, the examiner has added Brocke et al. ( see abstract, claim and Examples, cf. Examples N46) to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of liquid crystalline medium to include a compound represented by formula PPTU-n-S on page 26:
PNG
media_image3.png
127
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of Z1 is -C≡C- and X1 is CN or SCN in the one or more compounds of formula I as recited by instant claim 6 as well formula I-5 in claim 5 in view of improving properties relevant for the application in the microwave range of the electromagnetic spectrum and shelf life and stability under operation in a device ( see page 2, lines 4-18). It is noted that a person skilled in the art would recognize the selection of Z1 is -C≡C- as taught by Brocke et al. in view of -CF2O- as recited for example by Laut et al.’638 or Laut et al. ‘962 or Junge et al. is routinely expected due to these compounds are generally known in the field of liquid crystals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the general formula I of Laut et al.’638 or Laut et al. ‘962 or Junge et al. to include Z1 is -C≡C- and X1 is CN or SCN as taught by Brocke et al. in view of routine experimentation. - In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235; 220 F2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights