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. Response to Amendment • Claims 33-52 are currently pending. Claims 1-32 are canceled. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 33 and 34, in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has elected to elect with traverse. Applicant s have provided no arguments related to the restriction requirement. Therefore, the restriction/election requirement is still deemed proper and is made final. The withdrawn claims have been canceled. Accordingly, claims 33-52 are hereby fully examined. 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. Claim 38 is 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. In claim 38 , the term “the pH change” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of a “pH change.” Rather, claim 33 claims a “pH increase.” To correct, the Examiner suggests changing the term “change” in claim 38 to the word “increase.” Claim 39 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 38. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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. Claims 33, 35-38, 40-48, 50, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US-6149721-A) (hereinafter referred to as “ Wang ”) in view of Mori (JP-2020015891-A), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “ Mori ”) . Regarding claim s 33 and 46 , Wang teaches a writing instrument comprising a non-aqueous writing ink (see Wang at col. 1, lines 29-32, teaching a solvent-based ink suitable for use in a ball point pen; also see claim 15 of Wang, which claims a solvent based pen ink) , the non-aqueous writing ink including: • a solvent and a pH-sensitive water-soluble dye; wherein the solvent is selected from 1,2-propanediol, diethylene glycol, monoethylene glycol and dimethylsufoxide and/or mixtures thereof; and wherein the pH-sensitive water-soluble dye is capable of changing from an initially colored state to a discolored state when the writing ink is exposed to an ink eradicator composition or a pH increase to a pH value of more than about 9.0 (see Wang at col. 1, lines 28- 38, teaching an eradicable solvent-based ink containing an acid dye; also see Wang at col. 4, lines 52-57, teaching acid blue 93 as a suitable acid dye; acid blue 93 is a pH-sensitive water-soluble dye, as disclosed by Applicant’s specification at pg. 4, lines 21-24; also see Wang at col. 4, lines 42-50, teaching diethylene glycol as a suitable co-solvent for use in the ink; also see Wang at col. 2, lines 49-59 and col. 4, lines 57-61 , teaching the invention may be in the form of an eradicator system including the eradicable ink and an eradicator fluid which causes the acid dye to change color /decolorize ). While Wang teaches the ink outlined above, Wang fails to teach the ink as containing a gelling agent , wherein the gelling agent comprises water-insoluble cellulose nanofibers and/or a mixture of silica particles and of at least one fatty acid amide wax (in an amount between about 0.02 wt % and about 0.5 wt %, regarding claim 46) . However, Mori teaches an oil-based ink composition for a writing instrument which contains hydrophobic cellulose nanofibers (see Mori at pg. 2, para. 6). Mori further teaches their ink may contain a dye and a solvent, such as diethylene glycol (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 1; and pg. 6, para. 5). Moreover, Mori teaches that by blending the hydrophobized cellulose nanofibers, the oil-based ink composition for a writing instrument has an effect of imparting thixotropy, an effect of improving dispersion stability, and an effect of suppressing blurring (see Mori at pg. 3, para. 5). Additionally, Mori teaches the hydrophobized cellulose nanofiber to be incorporated in the ink in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 5% by mass, and that when the content is 0.01% or more, the effect of increasing the ink viscosity and the effect of imparting thixotropy are obtained, and that when the content is 5% or less, the ink viscosity does not signi ficantly increase and ink ejection failure does not occur (see Mori at pg. 5, para. 7). Wang teaches their ink may contain additional conventional ingredients such as thickeners (see Wang at col. 5, lines 18-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydrophobized cellulose nanofiber of Mori in the ink of Wang in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 5% by mass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order for the ink of Wang to have an effect of imparting thixotropy, an effect of improving dispersion stability, an effect of suppressing blurring, and an effect of not significantly increasing viscosity to cause ejection failure (see Mori at pg. 3, para. 5; also see Mori at pg. 5, para. 7). This range of 0.01 to 5% by mass overlaps the claim 46 range of 0.01 to 0.5 wt %, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 . Regarding claim 35 , since claim 35 does not necessitate the pH increase to be present, modified Wang necessarily reads on claim 35. Regarding claims 36-37 , the solubility of a dye is notably a property of the dye. The dye taught by Wang, Acid Blue 93, is the same dye as that taught by Applicants and used in their examples (see Wang at col. 4, lines 56-57; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 4, lines 21-24; also see Applicant’s specification at pg. 26, lines 11-12). Since the dye used by modified Wang is the same as that used by Applicants , it is the Examiner’s position that the dye meets the claimed solubility limitations. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01). In other words, burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to show Acid Blue 93 as not meeting the solubility limitations as claimed. Regarding claim 38 , see Wang at col. 2, lines 49-59, teaching the invention may be in the form of an eradicator system including an eradicator fluid; also see Wang at col. 5, lines 60-63, teaching example eradicator fluids that are aqueous (e.g., sodium sulfite aqueous solution); thus, Wang reasonably teaches their eradicator fluid may be aqueous. Regarding claim 40 , see Wang at col. 5, lines 60-63, teaching example eradicator fluids which may contain sodium sulfite, i.e., a sulfite. Regarding claim 41 , see Wang at col. 4, lines 52-57, teaching acid blue 93 as a suitable acid dye; acid blue 93 is a triarylmethane dye. Regarding claim 42 , see Wang at col. 4, lines 61-63, teaching the ink may contain 10 to 25% of triaryl methane dye; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 . Regarding claim 43 , see Wang at col. 1, lines 29-30, teaching the ink as being a solvent-based ink; also see the Examples of Wang at col. 5, teaching inks which do not contain water; thus, Wang reasonably teaches their ink may not contain water. Regarding claim 44 , while modified Wang teaches the writing instrument according to claim 33 outlined above, modified Wang fails to explicitly teach the solvent as comprising 1,2-propanediol and/or the monoethylene glycol. However, Mori teaches an oil-based ink composition for a writing instrument which contains hydrophobic cellulose nanofibers (see Mori at pg. 2, para. 6). Mori further teaches their ink may contain a dye and a solvent, such as ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 1; and pg. 6, para. 5). In this case, both ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol are functional equivalents, i.e., both are well-known organic solvents suitable for use in solvent-based ink compositions for writing instruments (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the diethylene glycol of modified Wang with ethylene glycol (i.e., monoethylene glycol) like that disclosed by Mori , as the substitution of art-recognized equivalents has been shown to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. Regarding claim 45 , see Wang at col. 4, lines 50-51, teaching the content of the co-solvent (i.e., diethylene glycol), as ranging from 0 to 60%; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 . Regarding claim 47 , see Wang at col. 5, lines 15-21, teaching the ink may contain an elastomer, such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone, in an amount ranging from 0.3 to 0.6%; this range falls completely within the claimed range. Regarding claim 48 , see Wang at col. 5, lines 7-13, teaching the ink may include a thickener in an amount ranging from 10 to 25%; this range falls completely within the claimed range. Regarding claim 50 , see Wang at col. 1, lines 28-31. Regarding claim 52 , see Wang at col. 2, lines 49-59 . Claim s 34 and 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Mori, as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Miyake et al. (US-20220363926-A1) ( hereinafter referred to as “ Miyake ” ). Regarding claim 34, while modified Wang teaches the writing instrument according to claim 33 outlined above, modified Wang fails to explicitly teach the writing instrument as dispe r sing more than about 50 mg of the non-aqueous writing ink per 150 meter of writing. However, Miyake teaches an oil-based ink composition for ballpoint pens (see Miyake at para. 0001). Miyake further teaches the ink consumption of the ballpoint pen to range from 20 to 150 mg per 100 m, and that if the consumption is less than 20 mg per 100 m, blurring and point unevenness in handwriting may be induced and it is often difficult to obtain good writing feeling , and that if it is more than 150 mg per 100 m, the ink followability may be adversely affected and the ink often leaks from between the ball and the tip end (see Miyake at para. 0109). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the ink consumption of the ballpoint pen of modified Wang to range from 20 to 150 mg per 100 m of writing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce blurring and point unevenness in handwriting , to obtain good writing feeling, and to prevent ink followability from being adversely affected (see Miyake at para. 0109). An ink consumption of 20 to 150 mg per 100 m is equivalent to a range of 30 to 225 mg per 150 m of writing ( 20 • 1.5 = 30; 150 • 1.5 = 225). This range of 30 to 225 mg overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 . Regarding claim 51 , while modified Wang teaches the writing instrument according to claim 50 outlined above, modified Wang fails to explicitly teach the ball-pen as including a ball size ranging from about 0.6 mm to about 1.5 mm. However, Miyake teaches a ballpoint pen containing a ball (see Miyake at para. 0093). Miyake further teaches the ball to generally have a diameter of 0.25 to 1.6 m and that the size is selected according to desired handwriting width (see Miyake at para. 0104). In this case, ball diameters ranging from 0.25 to 1.6 mm are known to suitably be used in ballpoint pens for oil-based inks in the art (as exemplified by Miyake at para. 0104 ) and thus , the use of such sizes in the ballpoint pen of modified Wang would yield a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ballpoint pen having a ball size of 0.25 to 1.6 mm in the pen of modified Wang , as combining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. This range of 0.25 to 1.6 mm overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 . Alternatively, since Miyake teaches that the ball size is selected according to desired handwriting width (see Miyake at para. 0104), the ball size is a result-effective variable. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have adjusted, by routine experimentation, the desired ball size according to desired handwriting width (e.g., larger diameter for increased handwriting width, and a shorter diameter for shorter handwriting width) (see Miyake at para. 0104). Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Mori, as applied to claim 33 above, and in the alternative, further in view of Hopson et al. (US- 5916357-A ) ( hereinafter referred to as “ Hopson ” ). Regarding claim 39 , the claimed limitation is a property of the claimed dye, i.e., the dye “is capable” of changing color “when” the dye is exposed to an aqueous eradicator fluid having a pH of 9.0 or greater; since the Acid Blue 93 dye is the same as that taught by Applicant’s ( see Applicant’s specification at pg. 4, lines 21-24 and pg. 26, lines 11-12), it necessarily follows the dye meets the claimed limitations. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). In the alternative, Hopson teaches an eradicable ink and an eradicator fluid (see Hopson at col. 2, lines 8-10). Hopson further teaches Acid Blue 93 as a suitable dye in the ink, and that the eradicable fluid may include water and a sulfite (see Hopson at col. 2, lines 27-29 and col. 7, lines 1-6 ). Moreover, Hopson teaches the pH of the eradicator fluid to be maintained between 11 and 12 (see Hopson at col. 7, lines 13-15). Wang teaches their eradicable fluid may be an aqueous sodium sulfite solution (see Wang at col. 5, lines 60-63). In this case, a pH of 11 to 12 is known in the art to be a suitable pH for an eradicator fluid sulfite solution for eradicating Acid Blue 93 (as exemplified by Hopson at col. 7, lines 13-15 ) and thus the use of such a pH for the eradicator fluid of modified Wang would yield a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the pH of the eradicator fluid of modified Wang to range from 11 to 12 , as such a pH is known to be suitable for use in similar eradicator fluids in the art (see Hopson at col. 7, lines 13-15). C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Mori, as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Kwan et al. ( US - 20070017413 - A1 ) ( hereinafter referred to as “ Kwan ” ). Regarding claim 49 , while modified Wang teaches the writing instrument according to claim 33 outlined above, modified Wang fails to explicitly teach the non-aqueous writing ink as further compris ing a second water-insoluble dye which does not change from an initially colored state to a discolored state when the non-aqueous writing ink is exposed to an aqueous ink eradicator composition or a pH change . However, it is generally well-known that eradicable inks may contain a non-eradicable colorant so that following exposure to an eradicator fluid, the colorant changes from a first color (the color exhibited by the mixture of the eradicable and the non-eradicable colorant ) to a second color (the color exhibited by the non-eradicable colorant ) (see Kwan at para. 0026, 0033, and 0041) . Further, one of ordinary skill would readily recognize the benefit of expanding the color-changing capabilities of the ink of modified Wang to be able to change from a first color to a second color (increasing the variety of possible color-changing effects produced). Wang suggests their ink may contain non-eradicable dyes (see Wang at col. 4, lines 64-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a non-eradicable dye in addition to the Acid Blue 93 to the ink of modified Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to expand the color-changing capabilities of the ink of modified Wang to be able to change from a first color to a second color, increasing the variety of possible color-changing effects produced. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claims 33, 35-43, 45, 46, and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/187,593 (herein after referred to as ‘ 593 ) (see claim set dated 04/23/2025) in view of Wang . With respect to instant claim 33 , claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 16 of ‘593 claim all of the limitations of instant claim 33 except for the ink as containing a pH-sensitive water-soluble dye and the solvent as being selected from 1,2-propanediol, diethylene glycol, monoethylene glycol, dimethylsulfoxide , and mixtures thereof. However, Wang teaches a non-aqueous ink composition for a writing instrument containing a pH-sensitive dye, Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as a solvent (see Wang at col. 4, lines 42-57). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pH-sensitive dye, such as Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as the dye and solvent of ‘593, respectively, as such components are well-known components suitably used in non-aqueous inks in writing instruments. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. With respect to instant claims 35-41 , such limitations are notably a property of the dye; since the acid blue 93 of modified ‘593 above is the same as that claimed, it necessarily follows that the claimed properties are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). With respect to instant claim s 4 2 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 42 is met by claim 10 of ‘593. With respect to instant claim 43 , it necessarily follows that the “non-aqueous” ink of modified ‘593 contains 0 wt % of water, or at least encompasses embodiments where the ink contains 0 wt % of water. With respect to instant claim s 4 5, 46, and 50 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 45 is met by claim 8 of ‘593; instant claim 46 is met by claim 6 of ‘593; and instant claim 50 is met by claim 16 of ‘593. Claim s 34 and 51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘593 in view of Wang and Miyake . With respect to instant claim s 34 and 51 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claimed limitations are obvious over Miyake for the same reasons outlined previously above (see claim 34 and 51 rejections over Miyake above). Claim 44 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘593 in view of Wang and Mori . With respect to instant claim 44 , ethylene glycol is a well-known solvent for use in writing inks, and thus, is use as the solvent in the ink of modified ‘593 would yield a reasonable expectation of success (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 5). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ethylene glycol as the solvent of modified ‘593. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. Claims 33, 35-41 , 43, 46-48, and 50 -51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 21, 2 9 , 31, and 32 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/006,425 (herein after referred to as ‘ 425 ) (see claim set dated 0 2 /2 5 /202 6 ) in view of Wang . With respect to instant claim 33 , claim s 16 , 31, and 32 of ‘425 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 33 except for the ink as containing a pH-sensitive water-soluble dye and the solvent as being selected from 1,2-propanediol, diethylene glycol, monoethylene glycol, dimethylsulfoxide , and mixtures thereof. However, Wang teaches a non-aqueous ink composition for a writing instrument containing a pH-sensitive dye, Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as a solvent (see Wang at col. 4, lines 42-57). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pH-sensitive dye, such as Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as the dye and solvent of ‘425, respectively, as such components are well- known components suitably used in non-aqueous inks in writing instruments. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. With respect to instant claims 35-41 , such limitations are notably a property of the dye; since the acid blue 93 of modified ‘425 above is the same as that claimed, it necessarily follows that the claimed properties are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). With respect to instant claim 43 , it necessarily follows that the “non-aqueous” ink of modified ‘425 contains 0 wt % of water, or at least encompasses embodiments where the ink contains 0 wt % of water. With respect to instant claim 46 -48 and 50-51 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 46 is met by claim 21 of ‘425; instant claim 47 is met by claim 16 of ‘425; instant claim 48 is met by claim 29 of ‘425; and instant claims 50-51 are met by claim 36 of ‘425. Claim 34 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of ‘425 in view of Wang and Miyake . With respect to instant claim 34 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claimed limitation s are obvious over Miyake for the same reasons outlined previously above (see claim 34 rejection over Miyake above). Claim 44 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of ‘425 in view of Wang and Mori . With respect to instant claim 44 , ethylene glycol is a well-known solvent for use in writing inks, and thus, is use as the solvent in the ink of modified ‘425 would yield a reasonable expectation of success (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 5). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ethylene glycol as the solvent of modified ‘425. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. Claims 33, 35-43, 45, 47, 48, and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 25, 28, 31, and 37 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/929,025 (herein after referred to as ‘ 025 ) (see claim set dated 01/20/2026) in view of Wang . With respect to instant claim 33 , claim s 16 , 25, and 28 of ‘025 claim all of the limitations of instant claim 33 except for the ink as containing a pH-sensitive water-soluble dye and the solvent as being selected from 1,2-propanediol, diethylene glycol, monoethylene glycol, dimethylsulfoxide , and mixtures thereof. However, Wang teaches a non-aqueous ink composition for a writing instrument containing a pH-sensitive dye, Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as a solvent (see Wang at col. 4, lines 42-57). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pH-sensitive dye, such as Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as the coloring agent and solvent of ‘025, respectively, as such components are well-known components suitably used in non-aqueous inks in writing instruments. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. With respect to instant claims 35-41 , such limitations are notably a property of the dye; since the acid blue 93 of modified ‘025 above is the same as that claimed, it necessarily follows that the claimed properties are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). With respect to instant claim 42 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 42 is met by claim 28 of ‘025. With respect to instant claim 43 , it necessarily follows that the “non-aqueous” ink of modified ‘025 contains 0 wt % of water, or at least encompasses embodiments where the ink contains 0 wt % of water. With respect to instant claim s 4 5, 47, and 48 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 45 is met by claim 37 of ‘025; instant claim 47 is met by claim 16 of ‘025; and instant claim 48 is met by claim 31 of ‘025. With respect to instant claim 50 , ballpoint pens are well known writing instruments suitable for use for non-aqueous inks (see Wang at col. 1, lines 29-32). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ballpoint pen as the writing instrument of ‘025, as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp ., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Claim s 34 and 51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of ‘025 in view of Wang and Miyake . With respect to instant claim s 34 and 51 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claimed limitations are obvious over Miyake for the same reasons outlined previously above (see claim 34 and 51 rejections over Miyake above). Claim 44 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of ‘025 in view of Wang and Mori . With respect to instant claim 44 , ethylene glycol is a well-known solvent suitable for use in writing inks, and thus, its use as the solvent in the ink of modified ‘025 would yield a reasonable expectation of success (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 5). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ethylene glycol as the solvent of modified ‘025. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. Claims 33, 35-41, 43, 45, 47, 48, and 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. US-12441900-B2 (herein after referred to as ‘ 900 ) in view of Wang . With respect to instant claim 33 , claims 1, 10, and 12 of ‘900 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 33 except for the ink as containing a pH-sensitive water-soluble dye and the solvent as being selected from 1,2-propanediol, diethylene glycol, monoethylene glycol, dimethylsulfoxide , and mixtures thereof. However, Wang teaches a non-aqueous ink composition for a writing instrument containing a pH-sensitive dye, Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as a solvent (see Wang at col. 4, lines 42-57). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pH-sensitive dye, such as Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as the coloring agent and solvent of ‘ 900 , respectively, as such components are well-known components suitably used in non-aqueous inks in writing instruments. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. With respect to instant claims 35-41 , such limitations are notably a property of the dye; since the acid blue 93 of modified ‘ 900 above is the same as that claimed, it necessarily follows that the claimed properties are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). With respect to instant claim 43 , it necessarily follows that the “non-aqueous” ink of modified ‘ 900 contains 0 wt % of water, or at least encompasses embodiments where the ink contains 0 wt % of water. With respect to instant claim s 4 5, 47, and 48 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 45 is met by claim 11 of ‘900; instant claim 47 is met by claim 3 of ‘900; and instant claim 48 is met by claim 1 of ‘900 (the resin of ‘900 corresponds to the instantly claimed “viscosity-imparting agent”. With respect to instant claim 50 , ballpoint pens are well known writing instruments suitable for use for non-aqueous inks (see Wang at col. 1, lines 29-32). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ballpoint pen as the writing instrument of ‘900, as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp ., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Claim s 34 and 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘900 in view of Wang and Miyake . With respect to instant claim s 34 and 51 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claimed limitations are obvious over Miyake for the same reasons outlined previously above (see claim 34 and 51 rejections over Miyake above). Claim 44 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘900 in view of Wang and Mori . With respect to instant claim 44 , ethylene glycol is a well-known solvent for use in writing inks, and thus, is use as the solvent in the ink of modified ‘900 would yield a reasonable expectation of success (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 5). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ethylene glycol as the solvent of modified ‘900. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. Claims 33, 35-43, 45, 46, and 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. US-12297362-B2 (herein after referred to as ‘ 362 ) in view of Wang . With respect to instant claim 33 , claims 1, 5, 7, and 13 of ‘362 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 33 except for the ink as containing a pH-sensitive water-soluble dye and the solvent as being selected from 1,2-propanediol, diethylene glycol, monoethylene glycol, dimethylsulfoxide , and mixtures thereof. However, Wang teaches a non-aqueous ink composition for a writing instrument containing a pH-sensitive dye, Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as a solvent (see Wang at col. 4, lines 42-57). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pH-sensitive dye, such as Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as the coloring agent and solvent of ‘362, respectively, as such components are well-known components suitably used in non-aqueous inks in writing instruments. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. With respect to instant claims 35-41 , such limitations are notably a property of the dye; since the acid blue 93 of modified ‘362 above is the same as that claimed, it necessarily follows that the claimed properties are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). With respect to instant claim 4 2, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 42 is met by claim 8 of ‘362. With respect to instant claim 43 , it necessarily follows that the “non-aqueous” ink of modified ‘362 contains 0 wt % of water, or at least encompasses embodiments where the ink contains 0 wt % of water. With respect to instant claim s 4 5 and 46 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 45 is met by claim 6 of ‘ 362 ; instant claim 46 is met by claim 15 of ‘362. With respect to instant claim 50 , ballpoint pens are well known writing instruments suitable for use for non-aqueous inks (see Wang at col. 1, lines 29-32). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ballpoint pen as the writing instrument of ‘ 362 , as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp ., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Claim s 34 and 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘ 362 in view of Wang and Miyake . With respect to instant claim s 34 and 51 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claimed limitations are obvious over Miyake for the same reasons outlined previously above (see claim 34 and 51 rejections over Miyake above). Claim 44 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘ 362 in view of Wang and Mori . With respect to instant claim 44 , ethylene glycol is a well-known solvent for use in writing inks, and thus, is use as the solvent in the ink of modified ‘ 362 would yield a reasonable expectation of success (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 5). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ethylene glycol as the solvent of modified ‘ 362 . C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. Claims 33, 35-41, 43, 45, and 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US-11891530-B2 (herein after referred to as ‘ 530 ) in view of Wang . With respect to instant claim 33 , claims 1, 4, 6, and 13 of ‘530 claim all of the limitations of instant claim 33 except for the ink as containing a pH-sensitive water-soluble dye and the solvent as being selected from 1,2-propanediol, diethylene glycol, monoethylene glycol, dimethylsulfoxide , and mixtures thereof. However, Wang teaches a non-aqueous ink composition for a writing instrument containing a pH-sensitive dye, Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as a solvent (see Wang at col. 4, lines 42-57). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pH-sensitive dye, such as Acid Blue 93, and diethylene glycol as the coloring agent and solvent of ‘530, respectively, as such components are well-known components suitably used in non-aqueous inks in writing instruments. C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. With respect to instant claims 35-41 , such limitations are notably a property of the dye; since the acid blue 93 of modified ‘530 above is the same as that claimed, it necessarily follows that the claimed properties are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). With respect to instant claim 43 , it necessarily follows that the “non-aqueous” ink of modified ‘530 contains 0 wt % of water, or at least encompasses embodiments where the ink contains 0 wt % of water. With respect to instant claim s 4 5 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 45 is met by claim 5 of ‘530. With respect to instant claim 50 , ballpoint pens are well known writing instruments suitable for use for non-aqueous inks (see Wang at col. 1, lines 29-32). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ballpoint pen as the writing instrument of ‘530, as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp ., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Claim s 34 and 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘530 in view of Wang and Miyake . With respect to instant claim s 34 and 51 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claimed limitations are obvious over Miyake for the same reasons outlined previously above (see claim 34 and 51 rejections over Miyake above). Claim 44 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘530 in view of Wang and Mori . With respect to instant claim 44 , ethylene glycol is a well-known solvent for use in writing inks, and thus, is use as the solvent in the ink of modified ‘ 530 would yield a reasonable expectation of success (see Mori at pg. 6, para. 5). Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ethylene glycol as the solvent of modified ‘ 530 . C ombining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Isogawa et al. (JP-2020183498-A) teach a non-aqueous inkjet ink composition (see Isogawa at Abstract). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8735 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday; 8 am - 5 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270- 3149 . 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. /J.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1731 /AMBER R ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731