DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received July 13, 2026.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn in view of the amendments canceling claims 5 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOROZUMI et al (JP-2015068852 A).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
858
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
804
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MOROZUMI et al report a copper or zinc phthalocyanine complex of the following structure formula (1):
PNG
media_image4.png
384
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
R1 is defined below as (2) of (3) from para. [0070].:
PNG
media_image5.png
226
460
media_image5.png
Greyscale
R2 and R3 are defined as being any one of (4) to (6) see below from para. [0072].
PNG
media_image6.png
214
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This structure meets the claimed Chemical formula (I) in claim 1 when “Y” is -O-, and R2 and/or R3 are 6 and R6 and R7 are alkyl as defined in para. [0073], see translation below:
PNG
media_image7.png
90
920
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-4 can be met choice of variables.
Claims 6 and 7 to L2 are met by (2) and (3) in formula (1) above.
Claims 9 is met when R1 of formula (1) of MOROZUMI et al is (2) or (3) and R2 and R3 are (4) and R4 is dialkyl amino. {(4) meets the claimed substituted C1 to C20 alkylene group of “ L2 “}
Claim 10 is met when R1 of formula (1) of MOROZUMI et al is (2) or (3) and R2 and R3 are (4) and R4 is dialkyl amino. {(4) meets the claimed substituted C1 to C20 alkylene group of “ L2 “}
Claim 12 is inherently present for the maximum absorption wavelength.
Claim 13 is met by Preparation of Colored Green Curable Composition A1 wherein the Cyan dye is disclosed in an amount of 4.8 parts of the whole composition, see para. [0180] .
Claim 15 is met by Preparation A1 which includes a yellow dye.
Claim 16 and 17 are met by the wt% of the components is met by Composition A1 below:
PNG
media_image8.png
188
950
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is negative working based on the polymerizable monomer and photoinitiator which cures upon exposure forming a hardened pattern at the exposed areas.
Claim 19 and 20 are disclosed in the reference for the formation of a color filter for display devices.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive compositions for color filters to select any of the group (2) – (6) with the reasonable expectation of having a composition suitable for forming color filters that
have high luminance and little decrease in transmittance.
The rejection is repeated wherein the substituent groups to Chemical Formula 3 continue to be met by the disclosed prior art, see MOROZUMI et al, para. [0073] for formula 6 to the dialkylamino group.
Claims 11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 11, none of the prior art references of record disclose the specific phthalocyanine compounds Chemical Formulae (1-1-1 to 1-1-50) and (1-2-1 to 1-2-10).
With respect to claim 14, the ratio claimed between the dispersing aid of Chemical Formula 1 and the pigment is not disclosed in MOROYUMI et al.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TAKAKUMA et al (2012/0182638 A1) disclose phthalocyanine dyes as dispersing aids to pigments and teaches substituted groups on the phthalocyanine dye such as phthalimido groups and diethylamino groups. Chemical Formula 6 in MOROZUMI et al is taught as an equivalent functional group to the phthalocyanine dye as substituents on the phthalocyanine dye see para. [0050] - [0054] with [0054] attached:
PNG
media_image9.png
206
364
media_image9.png
Greyscale
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN S CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Huff, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1385. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights