DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 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. 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. Claim (s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusaki et al. (US 2019/0194541, “Mizusaki”) . Regarding claim 1, Mizusaki teaches a curable resin ( [0015] ) for use in a sealing material for a liquid crystal panel ([0009]) wherein the sealant may comprise a polyfunctional thiol compound having from 2 to 6 thiol groups (see, e.g., pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-mercaptobutylate , [0137] ), a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate having 3 to 6 acryl groups (dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate, [0164], [0172], [0178]) and having a (meth)acrylic equivalent of 100 to 250 ([0164], dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate, having a (meth)acrylic equivalent of about 100). Mizusaki additionally teaches the resin may include a polyfunctional allyl having from 2 to 4 allyl groups (e.g., triallyl isocyanurate, [0139], [0186]), and a photopolymeirziation initiator ([0143]). Mizusaki additionally teaches that these “ene” compounds may be used in combination of two or more (i.e., both a triallyl isoyanurate and a dipentaerythritol hexacrylate may be included, [0139]). Additionally, Mizusaki teaches embodiments wherein, for example, the amount of thiol is 40% by mass and the amount of “ene” compound is 30% by mass ([0165]). If, for example, the acrylate and allyl compounds were used in equal proportions to one another (i.e., splitting the amount of total “ene” compound; such a case leading to the blending of components corresponding to claimed B and C of 1.0), such a composition would have a ratio between a functional group concentration of thiol groups to the sum of polymerizable groups of allyl and acrylate of between 0.5 and 3.0 (e.g., [3*0.40/(3*0.15+3*0.15)] = 1.33). Additionally, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have adjusted the amounts of each of these components in order to modify the properties of the composition as descried in the examples (see, e.g., Examples 1-10 and associated evaluation s ). The Examiner notes that 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). Please see MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 2, Mizusaki additionally teaches that the liquid crystal panel may have an end sealed by the curable resin composition (see Fig. 9, sealant S, [0132], [0130], [0134]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571- 272- 8935. 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. /ANTHONY J FROST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782