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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 14-24, in the reply filed on 12/3/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/3/25.
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) 1-12 and 14-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (WO 2019167696, for which English language equivalent PG Pub. US 2020/0369890 will be used as the citation copy, hereafter “Sasaki”) in view of Kondo et al. (JP 2011-99974, “Kondo” a machine translation of which is provided and used as the citation copy).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Sasaki teaches an absorption filter (e.g., [0066]) comprising a resin ([0068]) a dye that has a main absorption wavelength band in the visible light range (i.e., between 400 and 700 nm, [0068], and see colorant squarylium dye described at [0128] Formula (4) as being structurally the same as the squarylium dye compounds described in the present specification at pp. 22-23, General Formula (3) and is therefore considered to possess the same optical properties including wavelength absorption properties). Sasaki additionally teaches the resin compound may include a polystyrene structure (corresponding to the claimed high affinity partial structure, [0158]) and a hydrogenated polybutadiene structure (corresponding to the claimed low affinity partial structure, [0164]; please see also present specification at [0128] describing the above-described compounds as being high-affinity and low-affinity compounds, respectively). Sasaki fails to specifically teach that the composition includes a compound that forms a radical upon ultraviolet irradiation, however in the same field of endeavor of light absorption filters (pp. 1, 18), Kondo teaches that it is known to include a component that creates a radical when subject to UV radiation in a resin composition in order to create a color filter via mask pattern as is conventional and so as to create the filter with high quality and low cost (Kondo, pp. 9-10, 18, 19). It therefore would have been obvious to have included a component that creates a radical when subject to UV radiation in the resin film of Sasaki in order to create a color filter via mask pattern as is conventional and so as to create the filter with high quality and low cost (Kondo, pp. 9-10, 18, 19).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki additionally teaches that its dye includes a squarine-based dye reading on the structure of presently claimed General Formula (1) wherein A and B may be, for example, substituted aryl groups (e.g., [0102] – [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki additionally teaches the polymer may be a block copolymer (e.g., [0162], [0163], [0164], [0158], wherein the block copolymer may include, e.g., hydrogenated polybutadiene and a polystyrene).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki additionally teaches that the resin may include a polystyrene structure (corresponding to the claimed high affinity partial structure, [0158]).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki additionally teaches that the resin may include a hydrogenated polybutadiene structure (corresponding to the claimed low affinity partial structure, [0164]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sasaki additionally teaches the inclusion of a compound that is photocleavable and has a good balance of exposure sensitivity and stability over time for use in making a color filter via a mask and UV irradiation (see Kondo, pp. 9-10).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Sasaki (Kondo) additionally teaches that the compound that generates a radical upon exposure to UV radiation may generate that radical by extracting a hydrogen from the compound and may be an alkoxy-substituted benzophenone compound (e.g., alkoxybenzophenones, Kondo, pp. 11, 17-18).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki additionally teaches that the dye may be chemically changed and its color output changed by irradiation (e.g., [0078] – [0083]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sasaki additionally teaches that the filter may be made via mask exposure by UV irradiation (see Kondo, pp. 18-19).
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki additionally teaches the display may be an organic electroluminescent or liquid crystal display device ([0241]).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki additionally teaches the inclusion of a viewer-side optical filter blocking or absorbing UV radiation ([0007], [0008], [0194], [0245], Fig. 1, wherein the polarizer may be sandwiched by optical filters).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Sasaki additionally teaches that its dye includes a squarine-based dye reading on the structure of presently claimed General Formula (1) wherein A and B may be, for example, substituted aryl groups (e.g., [0102] – [0107] and the dye may be considered a quenching system, [0085]). Sasaki additionally teaches that at least one of A and B may be an electron quenching moiety (see, e.g., [0090] – [0091], having a moiety that would function as an electron-donating quencher).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sasaki additionally teaches the inclusion of a compound that is photocleavable and has a good balance of exposure sensitivity and stability over time for use in making a color filter via a mask and UV irradiation (see Kondo, pp. 9-10).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Sasaki (Kondo) additionally teaches that the compound that generates a radical upon exposure to UV radiation may generate that radical by extracting a hydrogen from the compound and may be an alkoxy-substituted benzophenone compound (e.g., alkoxybenzophenones, Kondo, pp. 11, 17-18).
Regarding claim 21, Sasaki additionally teaches that the dye may be chemically changed and its color output changed by irradiation (e.g., [0078] – [0083]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Sasaki additionally teaches that the filter may be made via mask exposure by UV irradiation (see Kondo, pp. 18-19).
Regarding claim 23, Sasaki additionally teaches the display may be an organic electroluminescent or liquid crystal display device ([0241]).
Regarding claim 24, Sasaki additionally teaches the inclusion of a viewer-side optical filter blocking or absorbing UV radiation ([0007], [0008], [0194], [0245], Fig. 1, wherein the polarizer may be sandwiched by optical filters).
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