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 of Species
Applicant's response filed 17 April 2026 does not elect a single species for examination. Applicants acknowledge the “searching complexity for the claims”, and have subsequently amended the base independent claim 1 to narrow the scope of some of the substituents in the compound of general formula O
PNG
media_image1.png
149
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
70
118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is limited to ONE of
PNG
media_image3.png
107
317
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image4.png
84
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; Zo1 is limited to a single bond; no2 is 1 or 2; no3 is 1; Lo1 is selected from ONE of -F, -Cl, C1-12 linear alkyl, C1-12 linear alkoxy, or C1-12 linear alkenyl; (J) po2 is 1 or 2; Spo3 is selected from –(CH2)p1- or –(CH2)p1-O-, wherein p1 represented an integer from 1 to 10; Ro1 and Ro3 are each selected from ONE of *-OH,
PNG
media_image5.png
150
607
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and Po1, Po2 and Po3
each independently represent
PNG
media_image6.png
80
130
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
109
125
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of the aforementioned amendments, and pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the Election of Species requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 19 February 2026, is hereby withdrawn and all species are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the election of species requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the election of species requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-14 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 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein one or more than two nonadjacent -CH2- in the” (emphasis added) with respect to the substituent Ro2 in the compound of formula O; the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the minimum number of nonadjacent -CH2- in the recited groups which may be replaced, for the substituent Ro2 in the claimed compound of formula O.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein one or more than two nonadjacent -CH2- in the above groups” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by and antecedent basis of “the above groups” is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ring substituent So2 in the claimed compound of formula O.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites
PNG
media_image8.png
181
603
media_image8.png
Greyscale
; the scope of the protection sought by “*” is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents Ro1 and Ro3 in the claimed compound of formula O.
Claim 2 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites each of the following formulae
PNG
media_image9.png
272
680
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
145
710
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
681
756
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
151
686
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added), as there is insufficient antecedent basis in light of the amendment to claim 1 whereby
PNG
media_image2.png
70
118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is one of
PNG
media_image3.png
107
317
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image4.png
84
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 6 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein one or more than two nonadjacent -CH2- in the” (emphasis added) with respect to the substituents RM1 and RM2 in the compound of formula M; the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 6 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the minimum number of nonadjacent -CH2- in the recited groups which may be replaced, for the substituents RM1 and RM2 in the compound of formula M contained in the claimed liquid crystal composition.
Claim 7 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formulae M-1 through M-29; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, as claim 7 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the definition of the substituent RM1 and RM2 therein, or that the substituents RM1 and RM2 are as recited in claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein one or more than two nonadjacent -CH2- in the” (emphasis added) with respect to the substituents RN1 and RN2 in the compound of formula N; the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the minimum number of nonadjacent -CH2- in the recited groups which may be replaced, for the substituents RN1 and RN2 in the compound of formula N contained in the claimed liquid crystal composition.
Claim 9 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formulae N-1 through N-55; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, as claim 9 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the definition of the substituent RN1 and RN2 therein, or that the substituents RN1 and RN2 are as recited in claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein one or more than two nonadjacent -CH2- in the” (emphasis added) with respect to the substituent R1 in the compound of formula RM; the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 10 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the minimum number of nonadjacent -CH2- in the recited groups which may be replaced, for the substituent R1 in the compound of formula RM contained in the claimed liquid crystal composition.
Claim 11 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formulae RM-1 through RM-55; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, as claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the definition of the substituents P1, Sp1, Z1, P2, Sp2, and Z2 therein, or that the substituents P1, Sp1, Z1, P2, Sp2, and Z2 are as recited in claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein one or more than two nonadjacent -CH2- in the” (emphasis added) with respect to the substituents RB1 and RB2 in the compound of formula B; the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 12 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the minimum number of nonadjacent -CH2- in the recited groups which may be replaced, for the substituents RB1 and RB2 in the compound of formula B contained in the claimed liquid crystal composition.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formulae B-1 through B-10; the scope of the protection sought is not clear, as claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the definition of the substituents XB, RB2, and ZB1 therein, or that the substituents XB, RB2, and ZB1 are as recited in claim 12. Also, the substituent nB3 is not defined in either claim 12 or 13.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: - U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0109900, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application; and- Chinese Patent No. CN 110527521 A, which teaches self-alignment agents similar to those of the present invention, as represented therein by
PNG
media_image13.png
120
475
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, except that the substituent L1 therein
PNG
media_image14.png
103
925
media_image14.png
Greyscale
does not encompass the comparable substituent Lo2 in the self-alignment agent of the present formula O .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 6-13 would be allowable if each is 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.
Claims 2-5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, Mark F 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights