DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1, 4, and 5 have been amended and claim 7 remains withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "22" and "102" have both been used to designate semiconductor chip. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The Examiner suggests amending FIG. 1 to replace 102 with 22.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (JP2015191001). Translation attached.
Iinuma et al. teaches an ultraviolet light-shielding material comprising an aqueous solution containing a water-soluble or water-dispersible resin and a water-soluble dye [0007], further comprising (2) a water-soluble ultraviolet absorber [0008], and further comprising an organic solvent [0009] (claim 1). Iinuma et al. also teaches the water-soluble polymer (water-soluble resin) serves as a base material of a light-shielding material, and is not particularly limited as long as the water-soluble polymer (water-soluble resin) can be dissolved in an organic solvent such as water or an alcohol to be applied and dried to form a film, and for example, polyethylene glycol, polyacrylic acid, methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyglycerol, other starch, gum arabic, gelatin, and methyl vinyl ether. Examples of the maleic anhydride copolymer include maleic anhydride copolymers, rose octaacetate, ammonium alginate, sodium alginate, polyvinylamine polyethyleneoxide, and polystyrene sulfonic acid. These are used alone or in combination [0021] wherein polystyrene sulfonic acid is equivalent to water-soluble resin (A1) of instant claims 1-3 and methyl or ethyl cellulose are equivalent to a cellulose-based resin of instant claim 4. Iinuma et al. further teaches examples of water-soluble UV absorbers include 2-tetrahydroxybenzophenone [0027] which is equivalent to a light absorbing agent (B) represented by formula (B1-1) of instant claim 1 when m and n are 1 and R1-R4 are hydroxy groups. Iinuma et al. also teaches it is possible to provide a highly reliable high-definition display device in which a portion of a substrate constituting a display device or an electronic apparatus that does not want to irradiate ultraviolet rays is composed of a solution selected from the group consisting of a water-soluble resin, a water-soluble dye, and a water-soluble ultraviolet absorber, and the light-shielding film made of the solution has a thickness of 5 μm or less and a light-shielding material having a light-shielding degree of 1 or more is applied, so that a portion coated with the light-shielding material cannot be observed by ultraviolet rays even in the processing step by ultraviolet irradiation, and ultraviolet rays can be accurately cut [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific teaches of Iinuma et al. to include additional compositions comprising the above described components and arriver at the instant claims through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components for the sought invention in order to achieve optimum light-shielding properties.
With regard to claim 5, Iinuma et al. teaches in the water-soluble light-shielding material of the present invention, the blending amount of the water-soluble polymer (water-soluble resin) is preferably 30 mass % to 70 mass %, and more preferably 30 mass % to 70 mass % based on the solid content [0023] such that the combined water-soluble resins overlap the instantly claimed range of 10% by mass to 50% by mass of the water-soluble resin (A1) with respect to a total solid content. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 6, Iinuma et al. teaches the ultraviolet light shielding material of the present invention is an aqueous solution, and the solvent is aqueous, that is, only water, or a mixed solvent of water and an organic solvent is used [0017].
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment filed May 20, 2026 of instant claim 1, the 102(a)(1) rejection over Karasaki and the 103 rejection over Chen in view of Moore have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with regard to these rejections have been considered but are moot due to the amendment of instant claim 1.
Due to the amendment of the specification, the objection to the drawings regarding “26 cut groove” has been withdrawn.
The amendment to the specification to have two reference characters, 22 and 102, depicting a semiconductor chip in the drawings has created a different issue than the objection in the previous Office Action, see above. The Examiner suggests amending FIG. 1 to replace 102 with 22.
Due to the amendment of instant claims 4 and 5, the objections have been withdrawn.
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 ANNA E MALLOY whose telephone number is (571)270-5849. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 EST M-F.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/Anna Malloy/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights