CTNF 17/889,386 CTNF 85106 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 February 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (WO 2019/155770), wherein US Serial No. 2020/0319548 is used as the English equivalent for citation purposes . Regarding claims 1 and 10 ; Miyata et al. teaches, in a preferred embodiment, a composition comprising a squarylium dye represented by Formula A-31 (near-IR absorbing pigment 9 [Table12]), polymerizable compound M1 (pentaerythritol tetraacrylate) and M2 (pentaerythritol triacrylate), a dispersant C1 (acid value = 105 mgKOH/g [0513]), and a pigment derivative B2 [Table4, Ex40]. PNG media_image1.png 268 274 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 114 598 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 152 370 media_image3.png Greyscale Although Miyata et al. teaches employing a squarylium dye represented by Formula A-31 above, Miyata et al. contemplates the use of other squarylium dyes suitable for achieving the present invention, such as a dye of the following generic Formula (SQ23) [0196]. PNG media_image4.png 264 780 media_image4.png Greyscale wherein n 100 is 0, X 30 and X 31 are boron, Rs 21 and Rs 22 are aryl groups, Rs 20 , Rs 23 , Rs 24 , and Rs 25 are hydrogen, the squarylium dye of Miyata et al. reads on the basic claimed dye required by the instant claims [0196-0200]. Miyata et al. teaches, in a preferred embodiment, a content of synergist is about 5% by mass with respect to the total mass of squarylium dye (as calculated by Examiner) and 0.14% based on the total ink (as calculated by Examiner) [Ex124]. Miyata et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a content of the synergist is 0.005% by mass to 0.1% by mass with respect to the total composition. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2144.05]. It is the Examiner’s position that a composition comprising 0.14% by mass synergist would have substantially similar properties compared to a composition comprising 0.1% by mass synergist. Miyata et al. teaches all of the above required components, however fails to explicitly disclose each in a preferred embodiment. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including the non-preferred embodiments. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.); MPEP §2123. Miyata et al. does not specifically disclose an embodiment containing the squarylium dye of the formula (SQ23). However, at the time of invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare a composition containing the squarylium dye of the formula (SQ23), polymerizable compounds, dispersant, and synergist, based on the invention of Miyata et al., and would have been motivated to do so since Miyata et al. suggests that the composition can contain the squarylium dye of the formula (SQ23) [0196-200], polymerizable compounds (pentaerythritol tetraacrylate and pentaerythritol triacrylate), a dispersant C1, and a pigment derivative B2 [Table4, Ex40]. Regarding claim 2 ; although Miyata et al. teaches the dispersant (C2), above, Miyata et al. contemplates the use of other dispersants, such as a dispersant of the formula (C3) [p82], having an amine value of 90 mgKOH/g and a quarternary ammonium salt value of 30 mgKOH/g [0514], thus the Examiner takes the position that the dispersant of (C3) of Miyata et al. has a base number of above 15 mgKOH/g. PNG media_image5.png 202 458 media_image5.png Greyscale (C3) Regarding claim 3 ; Miyata et al. teaches a ratio of a content of the dispersant to a content of the squarylium dye is 1.33 (as calculated by Examiner; 2.4/1.8=1.33) [Table4, Ex40]. Regarding claims 5-6 ; Miyata et al. teaches can contain a polymerization inhibitor. Examples of the polymerization inhibitor include hydroquinone, p-methoxyphenol, di-tert-butyl-p-cresol, pyrogallol, tert-butylcatechol, benzoquinone, 4,4′-thiobis(3-methyl-6-tert-butylphenol), 2,2′-methylenebis(4-methyl-6-t-butylphenol), and N-nitrosophenylhydroxyamine salt (for example, an ammonium salt or a cerium (III) salt). Among these, p-methoxyphenol is preferable. The content of the polymerization inhibitor is preferably 0.001 to 5 mass % with respect to the total solid content of the composition according to the embodiment of the present invention [0406]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP §2144.05. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including the non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.); See MPEP §2123. Regarding claims 7-8 ; Miyata et al. teaches the content of radical polymerization initiator is preferably 1-20 mass% with respect to the total solid content of the composition; a preferred example includes acylphosphine oxide [0349-0360]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP §2144.05. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including the non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.); See MPEP §2123. Regarding claim 11 ; Miyata et al. teaches emission-type printing such as spin coating and inkjet (e.g. on-demand style, piezo style, thermal style) and nozzle jet [0463]. Miyata et al. teaches, in a preferred embodiment, the composition was applied to a substate via spin coating method, which is substituted by ink jet printing [0463], and irradiated to acquire images [0577-0578] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (WO 2019/155770), wherein US Serial No. 2020/0319548 is used as the English equivalent for citation purposes, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Matsushita et al. (US Serial No. 2020/0108182) . Miyata et al. teaches the basic claimed ink jet recording ink, as set forth above, with respect to claim 1. Regarding claim 4 ; Miyata et al. teaches the content of polymerizable monomer is preferably 5-60 mass% relative to total solids of the composition [0345] and teaches a preferred monomer is pentaerythritol tetraacrylate (SP value: 21.5). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP §2144.05. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the polymerizable monomer in an amount of 10-40 mass %, and would have been motivated to do so because Miyata et al. teaches it suitable to add the polymerizable monomer in an amounts ranging from 5-60 mass%. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05. Matsushita et al. provides evidence that pentaerythritol tetraacrylate has a solubility parameter of 21.5 . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Miyata teaches the synergist is employed in an amount of 0.14% by mass based on the total ink, which falls outside the claimed range of 0.005% by mass to 0.1% by mass. As stated in the rejection above, it is the Examiner’s position that a composition comprising 0.14% by mass synergist would have substantially similar properties compared to a composition comprising 0.1% by mass synergist. As such, Miyata is still relied upon for rendering obvious the basic claimed composition, as required by the instant claim language. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5453. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 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 Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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. /JESSICA M ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 Application/Control Number: 17/889,386 Page 2 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 17/889,386 Page 3 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 17/889,386 Page 4 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 17/889,386 Page 5 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 17/889,386 Page 6 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 17/889,386 Page 7 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 17/889,386 Page 8 Art Unit: 1767
Prosecution Insights