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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are numerous structures that incomplete, for examples,
paragraph [0027] formulas i.e. IVA1, IVA2, IVB7, IVB8 and IB10,
paragraph [0029] formulas i.e. VA13, VA19, VC1, VC5 and VC37
paragraph [0049] the compound represented by 4CC1OW01
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4 and 10 are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Numerous compounds in claims 5 and 6 are incomplete, for example, formulas i.e. IVA1, IVA2, IVB7, IVB8 and IB10 and formulas i.e. VA13, VA19, VC1, VC5 and VC39. 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 5 and 7-10 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 5 recites “ preferably the compound represented by general formula IV is …”.The term, “ preferably” is indefinite, unclear and vague. Applicants have failed to address the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what applicants regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability. The claim includes both a broad and narrower definition, which renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the terms “ preferably, further preferably, and more preferably”.
The terms, “ preferably, more preferably and further preferably ” are indefinite, unclear and vague. Applicants have failed to address the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what applicants regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability. The claim includes both a broad and narrower definition, which renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “The liquid crystal composition according to claim 1, wherein the liquid crystal composition comprises the following components in percentage by mass; .. (4) .. of the compound by general formula IV, and (5)… of the compound represented by general formula V; …” However, there is no positive recitation of formulas IV and V recited in claim 1 or claim 7.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “ preferably the compound represented by general formula VI is …”.The term, “ preferably” is indefinite, unclear and vague. Applicants have failed to address the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what applicants regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability. The claim includes both a broad and narrower definition, which renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the terms “ preferably, further preferably, and more preferably”.
The terms, “ preferably, more preferably and further preferably ” are indefinite, unclear and vague. Applicants have failed to address the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what applicants regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability. The claim includes both a broad and narrower definition, which renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “ preferably in VA, IPS, or FFS mode …”.The term, “ preferably” is indefinite, unclear and vague. Applicants have failed to address the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what applicants regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability. The claim includes both a broad and narrower definition, which renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
The claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
The use of the liquid crystal composition is not specific, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process. It is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
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, 3-4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (WO 2022/252416 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 3-4, 6 and 10, Chen et al. (see abstract, claims and examples i.e. Example 12) teach a liquid crystal composition comprising negative dielectric anisotropic liquid crystal composition and its application , comprising at least one or more compounds represented by general formula I, one or more compounds represented by general formula II, and one or more compounds represented by general formula III and further comprises a compound of general formula V see i.e., Example 12 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
353
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein E1OSO1V and E1OSO2V meets the limitation of formula I as instantly claimed in 6%, 3CCV and 3CCV1 meets the limitation of formula II as instantly claimed , VCCP1 meets the limitation of formula III as instantly claimed and 3CWO4 and 5CWO2 meets the limitation of formula V as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 112079687 A).
Regarding claims 1-10, Zhang et al. (see abstract, claims, paragraphs [0028-0035, 0046-0057 and 0079] and examples) teach a liquid crystal composition and its application , comprising at least one or more compounds represented by general formula I, one or more compounds represented by general formula II, and one or more compounds represented by general formula III and further comprises a compound of general formula V see i.e., Table 5 of Example 10 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
732
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein Sc-CpO-O2 meets the limitation of general formula I as instantly claimed, CC-3-V and CC-3-V1 meets the limitation of general formula II as instantly claimed and CCP-V-1, CCP-V2-1, CPP-5-2 and CPP-1V-2 meets the limitation of general formula III as instantly claimed. It is noted the class IV compounds in 5% discloses formula IB2 in instant claim 2, CC-3-V in 19.5% discloses formula IIA1 in claim 3, compounds of class V in 29.5% discloses formulae IIIA25, IIIA37, IIC8 as instantly claimed, COY-3-O2 in 13% disclsoes formulae IV and IVA7 as instantly claimed and PY-3-O2 and CCY-3-02 in 22% duskcises formule VB14 and VC14 as instantly claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Kang et al. (CN 111484858 A1; see abstract, claims and examples 6 and 13-15) teach a liquid crystal composition as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
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, Anthony 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights