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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s addition of claim 14 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 16 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of KR 20150081552 A (hereby referred to as KR ‘552) and US 20140151614 A1 (hereby referred to as Muro).
Applicant has amended instant claim 1 to further specify the coloring composition. Specifically, instant claim 1 now recites that the azomethine metal complex content in the yellow colorant is 27% to 63% by mass, and the yellow colorant other than the azomethine metal complex is at least one selected from the group of C.I. Pigment Yellow 139, 185, or 215. Applicant argues that the previously cited art (JP ‘341 and Muro) fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed invention, as amended. In particular, Applicant argues that JP ‘341 does not include the azomethine metal complex in an amount within the claimed range. Further, Applicant argues that JP ‘341 teaches C.I. Pigments Yellow 138 and 150, but not C.I. Pigments Yellow 139, 185, or 215. Thus, Applicant argues JP ‘341 does not disclose or suggest the yellow colorant of instant claim 1. Applicant argues that Muro fails to remedy the deficiencies of JP ‘190 as well. The Examiner notes that Muro does recite C.I. Pigment Yellow 129 (as well as 138, 139, 150, and 185) as a suitable yellow pigment (see Muro, paragraph 0090). However, neither of the cited prior art references provide a specific example wherein C.I. Pigment Yellow 129 is used in combination with C.I. Pigments Yellow 139, 185, and/or 215, as recited by instant claim 1. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive. However, a new rejection is presented in view of KR 20150081552 A (hereby referred to as KR ‘552) and US 20140151614 A1 (hereby referred to as Muro), as explained below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20150081552 A (hereby referred to as KR ‘552) in view of US 20140151614 A1 (hereby referred to as Muro), citing Pigment Green 7 as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1, KR ‘552 discloses colored photosensitive resin composition. The colorant composition comprises a resin, a solvent, a photopolymerizable compound, a photopolymerization initiator, and a coloring agent (KR ‘552, page 3, 8th paragraph of the English translation). The colorant includes C.I. Pigment Green 7 and at least two yellow pigments selected from the group of C.I. Pigments Yellow 129, 138, and 139 (KR ‘552, page 3, 9th paragraph of the English translation). It is preferred that the pigment is provided in a dispersion containing the pigment and a resin-based pigment dispersant (KR ‘552, page 5, last two paragraphs of the English translation). Table 1 of KR ‘552 (see page 18 of the original publication) shows inventive examples of the photosensitive resin composition. A machine translated copy of Table 1 is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
735
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner brings attention to Examples 7 and 8 as shown in Table 1. In Example 7, 2.88 parts by mass of Y129 is included with 4.67 parts by mass of Y139 and 8.03 parts by mass of G7 as the colorant. In Example 8, 4.15 parts by mass of Y129 is included with 4.67 parts by mass of Y139 and 6.76 parts by mass of G7 as the colorant. These amounts are with respect to 100 parts by mass of the total composition (obtained by adding the amounts of each of the colorants with the additional components listed in Table 1). The relevant content ratios of the respective components in Example 7 are shown below, with the corresponding calculations.
Content of the yellow colorant with respect to the total amount of colorant:
Y
e
l
l
o
w
C
o
l
o
r
a
n
t
=
P
Y
139
+
P
Y
129
=
4.67
+
2.88
=
7.55
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
l
o
r
a
n
t
=
G
7
+
P
Y
139
+
P
Y
129
=
8.03
+
4.67
+
2.88
=
15.58
Y
e
l
l
o
w
C
o
l
o
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
=
Y
e
l
l
o
w
C
o
l
o
r
a
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
l
o
r
a
n
t
*
100
%
=
7.55
15.62
*
100
%
=
48.46
%
Thus, the content of the yellow colorant in the colorant (48.46%) is 30% by mass or more.
Content of the azomethine metal complex (hereby referred to as AMC) in the yellow colorant:
A
M
C
=
P
Y
129
=
2.88
Y
e
l
l
o
w
C
o
l
o
r
a
n
t
=
P
Y
139
+
P
Y
129
=
4.67
+
2.88
=
7.55
A
M
C
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
%
=
A
M
C
Y
e
l
l
o
w
C
o
l
o
r
a
n
t
*
100
%
=
2.88
7.55
*
100
%
=
38.15
%
Thus, the content of the azomethine metal complex in the yellow colorant (38.15%) is 27 to 63% by mass. Performing the same calculations for Example 8 yields a content of the yellow colorant in the colorant of 56.61% and an azomethine metal complex content in the yellow colorant of 47.05%. Examples 7 and 8 of KR ‘552 therefore disclose a coloring composition comprising a colorant including a yellow colorant, a resin, and a solvent, wherein the yellow colorant comprises C.I. Pigment Yellow 129 as an azomethine metal complex and C.I. Pigment Yellow 139 as a yellow colorant other than the azomethine metal complex and wherein the colorant content ratios recited by instant claim 1 are satisfied.
However, KR ‘552 is silent in regards to the inclusion of a graft resin. Muro teaches a coloring composition and a method of producing a color filter using the same. The composition for forming a green color filter contains a color pigment (Muro, paragraph 0083), which may include a green pigment (Muro, paragraph 0085) and further include a yellow pigment, such as C.I. Pigment Yellow 129, 139, 185, and others (Muro, paragraph 0089-0090). The colorant combination is determined such that the light transmittance of a layer having a thickness of 0.6 μm has specific behavior at specified wavelengths (Muro, paragraph 0089). Particularly, the light transmittance is controlled such that the light transmittance of light having a wavelength of 450 nm is less than 50% and the light transmittance of light having a wavelength of 550 nm is 80% or more (Muro, paragraph 0106). The composition further contains a dispersing agent (Muro, paragraph 0108), which is preferably a graft polymer (Muro, paragraph 0120). Specific examples of the graft polymer include formulas (1) to (4) (Muro, paragraph 0128).
KR ‘552 and Muro are analogous art because both references pertain to coloring compositions used to manufacture color filters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the graft polymer taught by Muro as the polymer dispersant disclosed by KR ‘552 because the use of a graft polymer in the coloring composition improves the dispersibility of the color pigment and improves the dispersion stability with respect to time (Muro, paragraph 0121). Further, the graft polymer allows the coloring composition to form a coating layer with better thickness uniformity (Muro, paragraph 0121).
Regarding Claim 2, in the above-described coloring composition obtained by combining the teachings of KR ‘552 and Muro, a quinophthalone compound is not utilized. Thus, the content of a quinophthalone compound in the yellow colorant is inherently less than 50% by mass.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Examples 7 and 8 disclosed by KR ‘552 includes G7, which is Color Index Pigment Green 7 (KR ‘552, refer to the translated Table 1 shown above). C.I. Pigment Green 7 is known in the art as a phthalocyanine compound (see the evidentiary Pigment Green 7 reference, specifically the structure on page 2 and the synonyms on page 1).
Regarding Claim 6, KR ‘552 is silent in regards to the light transmittance of a film produced from the colorant composition. Muro teaches the transmittance of a film formed from a colored composition having a thickness of 0.6 μm (Muro, paragraph 0073-0076), emphasizing the importance of the transmittance properties recited by instant claim 6 for transmitting the green component of light whilst sufficiently cutting the blue component of light (Muro, paragraph 0076).
Whilst neither KR ‘552 nor Muro teach the transmittance properties of a film having a thickness of 0.65 μm, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the colorant composition obtained by combining the teachings of KR ‘552 and Muro, as described above, would possess the light transmission properties recited by instant claim 6. In particular, the colorant composition obtained by combining the teachings of KR ‘552 and Muro, as described above, comprises C.I. Pigment Yellow 129 and 139 in addition to a green colorant. In Example 7, the azomethine metal complex (C.I. Pigment Yellow 129) is present in the yellow colorant in an amount of approximately 38%, and the yellow colorant is present in the total colorant in an amount of approximately 48%. This composition is comparable to Dispersion Liquid 6 of the instant application (see Table 1 on page 58 of the instant application’s specification). Dispersion Liquid 6 is used in Example 6 (see Table 6 on page 66 of the instant application’s specification). The instant application reports that the wavelength at 50% transmittance for Example 6 is 509 nm (see Table 11 on page 75 of the instant application’s specification). Due to the composition obtained by combining the teachings of KR ‘552 and Muro having similar or identical components in similar or identical amounts of the Dispersion Liquid 6 of the instant application, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the light transmission properties of the composition obtained by combining the teachings of KR ‘552 and Muro would be similar or identical to the light transmission properties of Example 6 of the instant application. Refer to MPEP 2144.09 and 2144.05 I. Therefore, the combination of KR ‘552 and Muro renders instant claim 6 prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 7, KR ‘552 discloses a colorant composition comprising the pigment dispersion of Examples 7 or 8, and further comprising a photopolymerizable compound (Kayarad DPHA) and a mixture of photopolymerization initiators (Irgacure 369 and EAB-F) (refer to the translated copy of Table 1 shown above).
Regarding Claim 8, KR ‘552 discloses color filter formed using the colored photosensitive resin composition (KR ‘552, page 15, last 5 paragraphs of the English translation).
Regarding Claims 9-12, KR ‘552 discloses that the colored composition is applied to a transparent substrate via a coating method to form a coating film, wherein the coating film is then subjected to selective exposure from an exposure light (i.e. a photolithography technique) and development with a developer to obtain a patterned film (KR ‘552, “Color Filter” section on pages 15-16 of the English translation). The patterned film is used in a color filter, which may be used for a liquid crystal display device (KR ‘552, “Color Filter” section on pages 15-16 of the English translation).
However, KR ‘552 is silent in regards to an imaging element. Muro teaches that the coloring composition is used to produce a film which is used in a color filter (Muro, paragraph 0492). The produced color filter may be used in liquid crystal display devices or solid-state imaging devices (Muro, paragraph 0493). It is well understood in the art that coloring compositions used to produce color filters may be used to produce display devices and solid-state imaging elements (see Muro, paragraph 0003-0008).
KR ‘552 and Muro are analogous art because both references pertain to coloring compositions used to manufacture color filters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the color filter disclosed by KR ‘552, which is formed from the composition obtained by combining the teachings of KR ‘552 and Muro, to produce a solid-state imaging device because the coloring composition (and subsequent color filter) provide images of high image quality and display characteristics in a display device (Muro, paragraph 0494) and because it is well known in the art that color filters have end use as solid-state imaging elements (Muro, paragraph 0003-0008).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20150081552 A (hereby referred to as KR ‘552) in view of US 20140151614 A1 (hereby referred to as Muro) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2008007776A1 (hereby referred to as WO ‘776).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of KR ‘552 and Muro, as described above, renders obvious the coloring composition according to instant claim 1. KR ‘552 is silent in regards to graft polymers. Muro teaches graft polymer pigment dispersants (Muro, paragraph 0120). However, KR ‘552 and Muro are both silent in regards to a graft resin including a repeating unit represented by Formula (Ac-2).
WO ‘776 teaches a polyester dispersant and a pigment composition using the same. The polyester dispersant is formed by reacting a tetracarboxylic anhydride with a polyol monohydrate (WO ‘776, paragraph 0036 of the English translation). The reaction scheme is shown on page 10 of the original WO ‘776 publication (WO ‘776, paragraph 0037 of the English translation). Specifically, WO ‘776 teaches a polymer synthesized by reacting n-butyl methacrylate with 3-mercapto-1,2-propanediol (also known as thioglycerol) and pyromellitic anhydride (WO ‘776, paragraph 0130 of the English translation). Comparing the synthesis taught by WO ‘776 with the synthesis of resin dispersant B-2 of the instant application (refer to page 63-64 of the instant application’s specification), it is clear that the synthetic route described by WO ‘776 yields a comparable resin, wherein the difference between WO ‘776 and dispersant B-2 is the inclusion of additional (meth)acrylate monomers. In other words, the polymer described by WO ‘776 has a repeating unit represented by Formula (Ac-2), wherein Ar10 is the aromatic group from the pyromellitic anhydride, L11 is -COO-, L12 is the trivalent linking group from the 3-mercapto-1,2-propanediol, and P10 is the polymer chain obtained from the n-butyl methacrylate. The tables on pages 41-47 of WO ‘776 show other embodiments of the polymer, wherein the amounts and types of the respective monomers are changed between the examples.
KR ‘552, Muro, and WO ‘776 are analogous art because each reference pertains to coloring compositions containing dispersing resins. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use a pigment dispersant having the graft resin structure taught by WO ‘776, which has the structure of Formula (Ac-2), in the coloring composition obtained by combining the teachings of KR ‘552 and Muro because the graft resin structure taught by WO ‘776 provides improved solvent affinity and improved pigment dispersibility (WO ‘776, paragraphs 0068 and 0184 of the English translation).
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 JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734