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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Multiple periods in the claims (…(1-1); …(1-2)) (See Fressola v. Manbeck , 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995) [MPEP 608.01(m)]. Appropriate correction is required . Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the extra text [Chem. 1] and [Chem. 2 ] . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Multiple periods in the claims (…(2)) (See Fressola v. Manbeck , 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995) [MPEP 608.01(m)]. Appropriate correction is required . Claim 1 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the extra text [Chem. 3] . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Multiple periods in the claims (…( 3 )) (See Fressola v. Manbeck , 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995) [MPEP 608.01(m)]. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the extra text [Chem. 4 ]. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Multiple periods in the claims (…( 4 )) (See Fressola v. Manbeck , 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995) [MPEP 608.01(m)]. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the extra text [Chem. 5 ]. Appropriate correction is required. 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 29 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. Claim 29 recite s the nonaqueous ink composition is used in an inkjet recording device . The limitations are drawn to a process of using the ink in an inkjet recording device , although the preamble of the claim is drawn to a composition. Because the claim recites both a composition and steps of a method of using the composition, the claim creates confusion as to whether the infringement would occur upon making the composition or upon using the composition in the recited method steps. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 , 3 - 4 , 19-2 3 , 25, and 28 -34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (US 2017/0218216) , when taken with C.I Pigment Orange 43 , PubChem . Regarding claims 1 , 3 - 4 , 19-22, 28 : Kubota et al. (US ‘ 216) discloses solvent based ink compositions for ink-jet printing [abstract ; 0016; 0019; 0024 ], wherein ink O1 [O1; 0116-0119; Table 1, O1] comprises 3 mass% P.O. 43 (C.I P igment O range 43 ; corresponding to pigment A1 with X1-X12 = H ; pH 6.5-7.5 [0120]), 73 mass% diethylene glycol, 10 mass% triethylene glycol monobutyl ether, 10 mass% γ-butyrolactone, 1.9 mass% dispersant ( Solsperse 17000; polyester polyami n e resin [0125]), 0.1 mass% BYK-340 (silicon based surfactant [0125]), and 2 mass% Solbin CL (vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer [0125]) [O1; 0116-0119; Table 1, O1] . Note C.I. P igment O range 43: [0125; Table 1, O1]. C.I. Pigment Orange 43 provides evidence for the structure of C.I. Pigment Orange 43 [§1.1]. Regarding claim s 23 and 25 : Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses Solsperse 17000 having basic groups [0104]. Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses 3 mass% P.O. 43 and 1.9 mass% Solsperse 17000 [O1; 0116-0119; Table 1, O1] ; corresponding to ~ 63 parts dispersant to 100 parts pigment. Regarding claim 2 9 : Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses using an ink jet printer ; solid printing of a recording resolution of 720x720 dpi of the ink composition [0127] [see also MPEP 2112.02]. Regarding claim s 30-31 : Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses using an ink jet printer, solid printing of a recording resolution of 720x720 dpi of the ink composition was carried out on a vinyl chloride medium [0127] . During recording, the recording medium was heated to 45 o C, discharged from the printer after printing, and then dried at 45 o C [0127] . Regarding claim 3 2 : Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses the ink set of Example 1 contains ink O1 [Ex. 1; 0126; Table 4, Ex. 1] . Regarding claim 33 : Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses using an ink jet printer, solid printing of a recording resolution of 720x720 dpi of the ink composition on a vinyl chloride medium [0127 -0128 ] . Regarding claim 34 : Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses an ink jet printer for discharging the ink from an ink jet recording head having discharge nozzles [0114]. The printer including piezoelectric elements arranged in the recording head [0114; 0127]. Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses SC-S70650” inkjet printer [0127]. Claim(s) 5 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iida et al. (US 201 8 / 0037761 ), when taken with Pigment Green 7 , PubChem. Regarding claims 5 and 8-12 : Iida et al. (US ‘ 761) discloses solvent based ink compositions for ink-jet printing [abstract; 00 0 1] comprising cyan pigments, such as C.I Pigment Blue 15:3 and C.I. Pigment Green 7 [0109]. Iida et al. (US ‘761) discloses ink 20 [ 20 ; 0189-0201 ; Table 3, 20 ] comprises 3 mass% C.I. Pigment Green 7 ( phthalocyanine green [0109]) (note: C.I. Pigment Green 7 exchanged for P.B. 15:3 (C.I Pigment Blue 15:3 (phthalocyanine blue [01 9 2]) as the cyan pigment [0109] ; see also MPEP 2131.02) , 65.5 mass% DEGMEE (d iethylene glycol m ethyl ethyl ether [0134]) , 2 0 mass% γ-butyrolactone, 4 mass% dispersant ( Solsperse 17000; polyester polyami n e resin [0 143-0144] ), 1.5 mass% BYK-340 (silicon - based surfactant [0 145-0146 ]), 1.5 mass% Solbin CL (vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer [0 148 ]) , and 3.5 mass% paraloid B60 [20; 0189-0201; Table 3, 20] . Note C.I. Pigment Green 7 ( phthalocyanine green): [0109]. Pigment Green 7 provides evidence for the structure of C.I. Pigment Green 7 [§1.1; § 3.2.1 ]. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (US 2017/0218216) as applied to claim 1 above , when taken with Anti-Terra-204 Data Sheet; BYK-Chemie GmbH; 09/2023. Regarding claim 24: Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses dispersants [0102-0104] , such as Solsperse 17000 and Anti-Terra-204 having an amine value of 37 mg KOH/g [0104] (i.e. exchange Anti-Terra-204 for Solsperse 17000 as the dispersant in ink O1 [see MPEP 2131.02]). Anti-Terra-204 Data Sheet provides evidence for an amine value of 37 mg KOH/g [§ Product data]. 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. 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. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2017/0218216) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakuma et al. (JP 2008-156466) (English machine translation for citation) . Regarding claim 2: Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses a volume average median particle dimeter (D50) for P.O. 43 of 100 nm to 400 nm [0075-0077]. Kubota et al. (US ‘216) does not disclose a volume average 90% particle dimeter (D 9 0) of 500 nm or less However, Sakuma et al. (JP ‘ 466) discloses non-aqueous pigment dispersions [0001], wherein the D90 of the pigment is 0.6 µm (600 nm) or less, preferably 0. 4 µm ( 4 00 nm) or less [0034 ; Table 1 ] . Kubota et al. (US ‘216) and Sakuma et al. (JP ‘ 466) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of non-aqueous pigment dispersions . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a pigment having a D90 of 0.6 µm (600 nm) or less, preferably 0.4 µm (400 nm) or less , as taught by Sakuma et al. (JP ‘466) in the invention of Kubota et al. (US ‘216) , and would have been motivated to do so since Sakuma et al. (JP ‘466) discloses pigment s having a D90 of 0.6 µm (600 nm) or less, preferably 0.4 µm (400 nm) or less affords pigment dispersions having low viscosity and excellent storage stability [0007; 0034]. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2018/0037761) as applied to claim 5 above . Regarding claim 6 : Iida et al. (US ‘ 761) discloses the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 5 ]; wherein Iida et al. (US ‘ 761) discloses average primary particle diameter (D50 [006 6 ]) of 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less [0106] . Iida et al. (US ‘ 761) does not specifically disclose C.I. Pigment Green 7 having a D50 of 30 nm to 150 nm, However, i n 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); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05]. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2018/0037761) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sakuma et al. (JP 2008-156466) (English machine translation for citation). Regarding claim 7 : Iida et al. (US ‘761) discloses the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 5 ]; wherein Iida et al. (US ‘761) discloses a volume average median particle dimeter (D50 [0066]) for C.I. Pigment Green 7 of 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less [0106] . Iida et al. (US ‘761) does not disclose a volume average 90% particle dimeter (D90) of 50 nm or more and 300 nm or less However, Sakuma et al. (JP ‘466) discloses non-aqueous pigment dispersions [0001], wherein the D90 of the pigment is 0.6 µm (600 nm) or less, preferably 0.4 µm (400 nm) or less [0034 ; Table 1 ]. Iida et al. (US ‘761) and Sakuma et al. (JP ‘466) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of non-aqueous pigment dispersions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a pigment having a D90 of 0.6 µm (600 nm) or less, preferably 0.4 µm (400 nm) or less, as taught by Sakuma et al. (JP ‘466) in the invention of Iida et al. (US ‘761), and would have been motivated to do so since Sakuma et al. (JP ‘466) discloses pigments having a D90 of 0.6 µm (600 nm) or less, preferably 0.4 µm (400 nm) or less affords pigment dispersions having low viscosity and excellent storage stability [0007; 0034]. Claim(s) 13-1 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2017/0218216) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hazama et al. (JP 20 08-260947 ) (English machine translation for citation). Regarding claim s 13-1 8 : Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 4 ]; wherein Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses other solvents [00 56-0062 ]. Kubota et al. (US ‘216) does not specifically disclose an alkyl amide solvent of instant formula (2) or a cyclic amide solvent of instant formula 3. However, Hazama et al. (JP ‘ 947) discloses non-aqueous inkjet inks [0001] comprising solven t s, such as N,N- diethylformamide [0011-0012; 0014] and ε-caprolactam [ 0011-0013] . Kubota et al. (US ‘216) and Hazama et al. (JP ‘947) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of non-aqueous inkjet inks . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined solvents, such as N,N- diethylformamide [instant claims 13-15] or ε-caprolactam [instant claims 16-18 ] , as taught by Hazama et al. (JP ‘947) in the invention of Kubota et al. (US ‘216) , and would have been motivated to do so since Hazama et al. (JP ‘947) discloses solvents, such as N,N- diethylformamide and ε-caprolactam affords non-aqueous inkjet inks having excellent adhesion to polyvinylchloride resin sheet [0008 ; 0011-0014] . Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2017/0218216) as applied to claim 1 above, when taken with Abe (JP 2014-156511) (English machine translation) . Regarding claim s 26-27 : Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses the basic claimed composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Kubota et al. (US ‘216) discloses the ink can contain 0.5 mass% or more and 6 mass% or less of an acrylic resin, such as Acrypet MF having a viscosity of 0.1 L /g (100 m L /g) or less [0096-0096]. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven , 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) [see MPEP 2144.06]. Abe (JP ‘ 511) provides evidence for Acrypet MF having a viscosity of 0.1 L /g or less [ §Acrylic resin composition] . 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. Claim s 1 , 3 and 30-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 , 3 and 9-14 of copending Application No. 18/720098 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the non-aqueous ink composition of comprising a pigment of Formula (1), a pigment dispersant, an organic solvent, and a resin ; recording method; ink set; method for producing recorded matter of Application No. 18/720098 anticipates the instant claimed non-aqueous ink composition of comprising a pigment of Formula (1 -1 ), a pigment dispersant, an organic solvent ; recording method; ink set; method for producing recorded matter . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1 , 3 and 30-33 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 , 3, 9, 11- 14 , and 16 of copending Application No. 18/7 19881 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the non-aqueous ink composition of comprising a pigment of Formula (1), a pigment dispersant, an d organic solvent ; recording method; ink set; method for producing recorded matter of Application No. 18/7 19881 anticipates the instant claimed non-aqueous ink composition of comprising a pigment of Formula (1- 2 ), a pigment dispersant, an organic solvent ; recording method; ink set; method for producing recorded matter This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. See attached form PTO-892. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3299 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 AM - 3:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL F PEPITONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767