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 .
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 1-21 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 “R3 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…preferably H or CH3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “R3 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…”, and the claim also recites “preferably H or CH3” 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. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent R3 in the compound of formula I contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “L1 and L2 each, independently of one another, denote F, Cl, CF3, or CHF2; preferably L1 and L2 both denote F” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “L1 and L2 each, independently of one another, denote F, Cl, CF3, or CHF2“, and the claim also recites “preferably L1 and L2 both denote F” 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. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents L1 and L2 in the compound of formula I contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “Y1 to Y3 each, independently of one another, denote a H atom, an alkyl group…preferably H or CH3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “Y1 to Y3 each, independently of one another, denote a H atom, an alkyl group…”, and the claim also recites “preferably H or CH3” 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. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituents Y1 to Y3 in the compound of formula S contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “X3 denotes a halogen atom, a halogenated alkyl…very preferably F, Cl, -O-CH=CF2, -O CHF2, or -OCF3“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claims 4-6 each recite the broad recitation “X3 denotes a halogen atom, a halogenated alkyl…” and the claim also recites “very preferably F, Cl, -O-CH=CF2, -O CHF2, or -OCF3“ 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. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent X3 in the compound of formula B contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 2 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “X0 denotes halogen atom, halogenated alkyl…very preferably F, CF3, -CHF2, -OCHF2, or -OCF3“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “X0 denotes halogen atom, halogenated alkyl… “, and the claim also recites ”very preferably F, CF3, -CHF2, -OCHF2, or -OCF3“ 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. Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent X0 in the compounds of formulae IV through VIII contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 2 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…preferably H or CH3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…”, and the claim also recites “preferably H or CH3” 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. Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent Y0 in the compounds of formulae IV through VIII contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 3 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “X0 denotes halogen atom, halogenated alkyl…very preferably F, CF3, -CHF2, -OCHF2, or -OCF3“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “X0 denotes halogen atom, halogenated alkyl… “, and the claim also recites ”very preferably F, CF3, -CHF2, -OCHF2, or -OCF3“ 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. Claim 3 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent X0 in the compounds of formulae XVIII through XXIII contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 3 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…preferably H or CH3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…”, and the claim also recites “preferably H or CH3” 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. Claim 3 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent Y0 in the compounds of formulae XVIII through XXIII contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 4 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “X0 denotes halogen atom, halogenated alkyl…very preferably F, CF3, -CHF2, -OCHF2, or -OCF3“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “X0 denotes halogen atom, halogenated alkyl… “, and the claim also recites ”very preferably F, CF3, -CHF2, -OCHF2, or -OCF3“ 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. Claim 4 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent X0 in the compounds of formulae XXVII through XXX contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 4 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…preferably H or CH3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…”, and the claim also recites “preferably H or CH3” 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. Claim 4 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent Y0 in the compounds of formulae XXVII through XXX contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recite “R23 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…preferably H or CH3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claims 5 and 6 each recite the broad recitation “R23 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…”, and the claims also recite “preferably H or CH3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims 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. Claims 5 and 6 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent R23 in the compounds of formulae YA, YB, YC, YD, YE, YF, YG and B contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claims 7-9 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when they each recites “X0 denotes a halogen atom, -CN, -SCN…preferably F, CF3, CHF2, OCHF2, or OCF3“ (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claims 7-9 each recite the broad recitation “X0 denotes a halogen atom, -CN, -SCN… “, and the claim also recites “preferably F, CF3, CHF2, -OCHF2, or -OCF3” 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. Claim 7-9 each fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent X0 in the compounds of formulae II and III contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 7 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…preferably H or CH3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…”, and the claim also recites “preferably H or CH3” 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. Claim 7 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent Y0 in the compounds of formulae II and III contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 10 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein one or more, preferably one, of the aromatic rings are optionally substituted by an alkyl group, preferably by methyl” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 10 recites the broad recitation, i.e., essentially that one or more of the aromatic rings are optionally substituted by an alkyl group, and the claim also recites each of “preferably one” aromatic ring, and optionally substituted “preferably by methyl“, each of 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. Claim 10 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the aromatic rings in the compounds of N1 and N2 contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 14 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…preferably H or CH3” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “Y0 denotes a H atom, an alkyl group…”, and the claim also recites “preferably H or CH3” 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. Claim 14 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the substituent Y0 in the compounds of formulae LP1 and LP2 contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
Claim 15 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “n * p denotes an integer from 1 to 10, preferably from 3 to 8” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “preferably” 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, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “n * p denotes an integer from 1 to 10”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 3 to 8” 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. Claim 15 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim “n * p” in the compound of formula H contained in the claimed liquid-crystalline medium.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0119711).
Claim 6 of Lau et al. is drawn to a liquid crystalline medium having a positive dielectric anisotropy characterized by comprising a combination inclusive of the compound of the present formula I, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image1.png
133
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and more specifically, as represented therein by
PNG
media_image2.png
119
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
114
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or ,
PNG
media_image3.png
114
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
with a compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula B, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image4.png
147
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5-7, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0119711).
The liquid crystalline medium having a positive dielectric anisotropy of Laut et al. described in preceding paragraph 20, characterized by comprising a compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula I and a compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula B, which may also be represented any one of the following
PNG
media_image5.png
224
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, as well as B2-2’ as in claim 6, as represented therein by
PNG
media_image6.png
124
389
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0021], p. 2), and the corresponding use thereof in TN, PS-TN, STN, TN-TFT, OCB, IPS, PS-IPS, FFS, HB-FFS PS-FFS, SA-HB-FFS, polymer stabilized SA-HB-FFS, positive VA or positive PS-VA displays (abstract; claims 14-16) further comprises the following compounds:
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formulae YA through YG as recited in claims 5-6, particularly YA and YB, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image7.png
140
401
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0120], p. 14),
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula III as recited in claims 7 and 9, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image8.png
156
415
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0057], p. 6+),
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula IV as recited in claim 7, as generally represented therein by formula
PNG
media_image9.png
150
394
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0106], p. 12),
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula V as recited in claim 7, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image10.png
156
392
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0106], p. 12),
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula N1 as recited in claim 10, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image11.png
100
410
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0112], p. 13),
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formulae Z1 though Z4 and Z8 as recited in claims 11 and 12, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image12.png
83
382
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0088], p. 11)
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula XIII as recited in claim 13, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image13.png
107
383
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0117], p. 13),
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula XIII’ as recited in claim 13, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image14.png
105
386
media_image14.png
Greyscale
([0117], p. 13),
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula XVI as recited in claim 13, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image15.png
100
396
media_image15.png
Greyscale
([0117], p. 13),
at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula LP1 as recited in claim 14, as generally represented therein by
PNG
media_image16.png
120
388
media_image16.png
Greyscale
([0147]. p. 19),
preferably at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula H as recited in claim 15, as generally represented therein by formulae ST-h ([0170], p. 21+), and
preferably at least one compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula ST as recited in claim 16, as generally represented therein by formulae ST-a to ST-g ([0170], p. 21+).
Although Laut et al. does not expressly illustrate the liquid crystal composition/medium characterized containing a combination of a compound inclusive of the compound of the present formula with the aforementioned compounds, they are well known in the liquid crystal art, individually as well as in combination, as generally taught therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time the invention was filed to combine the compounds in a liquid crystal composition/medium, as generally taught therein Laut et al., with reasonable expectations of achieving, absent object evidence to the contrary, the advantages taught therein, as well as those associated with their combination thereof.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,692,441. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other since both sets of claims are drawn to a liquid crystalline medium having a positive dielectric anisotropy comprising a combination of a compound of the present formula I with a compound of the present formula B.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 19/457,364 (corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0218049). Although the claims at issue are not identical, the Examiner notes that they are obvious variants thereof each other, and that they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a liquid crystalline medium having a positive dielectric anisotropy and the corresponding method of preparing said liquid crystalline medium, as well as the corresponding use thereof said liquid crystalline medium in a liquid crystal display device, characterized in that said liquid crystalline medium comprises a combination of a compound of the present formula I with a compound of the present formula B and compounds of the present formulae YA-YG, P, II/III, IV-VIII, N1/N2, Z1-Z10, XII-XXXII, LP1/LP2, H, and ST.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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. 2026/0218050, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application.
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