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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagimoto et al (JP 2008-248112 and its machine translation).
Yanagimoto et al disclose a photosensitive pigment dispersant composition for a color filter (the reference does not specific positive or negative but one of skill in the art would have envisaged additives for the composition to be either negative or positive, and given the composition can be thermally cured, the composition would be considered negative) instant claims 17-20; abstract) comprising a pigment colorant, a dispersant, a polymer, oligomer, or monomer, a binder, a polymerization initiator, and a solvent, wherein the pigment has the following structure which may include a sulfonate salt:
PNG
media_image1.png
154
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein M is preferably copper, but may be Zn. Instant R11 to R14, R21 to R24 and R31 to R34 are H, halogen, or alkoxy which may be substituted with a sulfonate salt as seen in the exemplified structure below (instant claims 1, 2, and 4), and wherein the structure may be -O-L1-L2-A, wherein L1 is phenyl, L2 is a single bond (or alkyl as in broader teachings), and A is SO3- or a salt comprising Na ([0016], [0017], [0020]; instant claims 6, 8, and-9):
PNG
media_image2.png
202
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound above meets the limitations of the instant formula 1-1 and 1-2 wherein one of R51 to R55 is a sulfonic acid ([0017], [0044]).
With respect to the wavelength limitation of the instant claim 12, the reference is silent with the maximum absorption of the pigment compound. However, given that the compound of the reference meets the limitations of the instant claims for the structure, one of skill in the art would have expected the compound to inherently possess a maximum absorption falling within the scope of the instant claim 12.
With respect to the instant claims 13 and 14, the reference teaches that the dispersant is present in the composition in an amount of 0.05 to 40, preferably 0.1 to 10 parts by mass (1 and 18.5 parts in examples, [0021]) to 100 parts of the pigment, which would fall within the scope of the claimed weight ratio of 1:20 to 1:70, and the pigment is present in examples at 20 parts of the composition, and the dispersant at 0.5 to 40 parts by mass of the pigment (11 and 18.5 parts in examples) it can be estimated that the pigments dispersant in the pigment composition, is present in the total composition in an amount falling within the scope of the instant claim 13, 0.5 to 6 wt%.
With respect to the instant claim 15, the pigment may be yellow, but preferably green ([0004], [0022]).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Yanagimoto et al, choosing as the pigment dispersant, that as described above having a group in at least the R41 to R44 position having a group including a sulfonic acid metal salt, wherein the resultant material would meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagimoto et al in view of Kobayashi et al (2014/0366285).
Yangimoto et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a composition and compound having a sulfonic acid salt, with non-limiting suggested groups ([0017]).
Kobayashi et al disclose a dye of similar structure in a coloring composition, wherein the compound includes a sulfonic acid metal (Na) salt on a ring similar to that of the primary reference, and wherein the substituent containing the salt group has a structure of that taught by the primary reference, and broader teachings which include -O-alkyl-SO3Na (2b, 4a, 5n). The reference further teaches the equivalence of ring substituents including H, alkyl, halogen on the “P” rings, equivalent to the rings with R11-R14, R21-R24, R31 to R34, and R41-R44 of the instant formula ([0077]).
PNG
media_image3.png
322
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
414
612
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Yanagimoto et al, choosing as the substituents on the rings, alkyl groups, and also as the salt-containing substituent, that having an alkyl group as taught to be known and equivalent to the non-limiting substituents of Kobayashi et al with the resultant compound meeting the limitations of the instant claims 3, 7, and 11 (formulas 1-3, 1-4, 1-1-1, 1-1-2, 1-1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 is 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.
The reference also fails to fairly teach or suggest amounts of each component in the weight percentages as claimed, and instead teaches away from the claimed amounts and/or does not include a teaching for the amount of component, such as the initiator. Commonly owned, Kwon et al (2024/0176232) is cited for its teachings of a similar compound and material, however the compound includes an alkoxy group having an amine group and no sulfonic acid salt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has cancelled claim 5 and amended claim 1 to require that at least one of R41 to R44 is -O-L1-L2-A. Applicant has argued that the reference fails to teach or suggest a compound as now claimed wherein the compound comprises -O-L1-L2-A (response, page 27). As set forth above and in the previous office action, the Yanagimoto et al reference does teach a compound having the claimed group. The compounds as cited above and previously include a substituent on any of the four rings, including that which equates to that comprising the instant R41 to R44 having a -O-L1-L2-A group. As set forth by the office compound E includes -O-Ph-SO3- wherein the cation is taught to be +N(C4H9)4, but the reference further teaches may be a Na atom ([0020]). In the reference exemplified compound, the instant L1 is phenyl, and L2 is a single bond, with A being SO3- , which meets the limitations of the instant claims, and the rejections of record are maintained.
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 AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights