CTNF 18/450,368 CTNF 84813 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 7-11, 13, 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al (US 2019/0185656) . Regarding claim 1 , Ogawa teaches a coloring composition comprising: a pigment ([0287]), the content of the colorant in the composition ranges from 20 to 99 % by mass ([0288]) based on the total solid content of the composition a solvent ([0451]) a resin having a polymerizable group ([0160] and ([0182]) a phenolic hydroxyl group ([0200]) an acidic group ([0409]) Ogawa fails to specifically exemplify the claimed coloring composition. However, Ogawa discloses each of the components of the composition, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the coloring composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the compositions suggested by Ogawa, including the claimed composition. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Ogawa to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would be nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 2 , Ogawa teaches the following structure for the polymerizable group: PNG media_image1.png 124 290 media_image1.png Greyscale ([0278]) Which reads on structure A when Z 1 is a curable group ([0273)] such as a (meth)acryloyloxy group ([0093]) Regarding claims 3, 7-8 and 18 , Ogawa teaches the following for the phenolic hydroxyl group: PNG media_image2.png 186 236 media_image2.png Greyscale ([0194]) Which reads on the structure of formula 2 when X b is an oxygen atom ([0196]), L b is a single bond ([0197]) and Z b is a phenolic hydroxyl group ([0200]). Regarding claim 9 , Ogawa teaches that the pigment can be carbon black or titanium black ([0302]). Regarding claim 10 , Ogawa teaches the further additional constitutional unit: PNG media_image3.png 130 294 media_image3.png Greyscale ([179]) Regarding claims 11, 13 and 15-16, Ogawa teaches that the composition is made into a cured film, a color filter, a solid stage imaging element and an infrared sensor ([0002]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al (US 2019/0185656) in view of Tanaka (US 2012/0104529) . The discussion regarding Ogawa in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference. Regarding claims 12 and 14 , Ogawa teaches that the composition can be made into a cured film ([0002]), however fails to teach that it used as a light-shielding film and an optical element. Tanaka teaches a cured film which is used as a color filter, a light-shielding film and an optical element ([0002]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cured film of Ogawa as the light-shielding film and optical element as taught by Tanaka. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using a cured film in an application to improve image quality (Tanaka, [0002]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al (US 2019/0185656) in view of Hamada (WO 2019/065456, please refer to US 2020/0225580 for English language equivalent and mapping) . The discussion regarding Ogawa in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference. Regarding claim 17 , Ogawa teaches that the composition can be made into a cured film ([0002]), however fails to teach that it in a headlight unit. Hamada teaches a cured film (Abstract) can be used as a light blocking film of a headlight unit ([0355]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cured film of Ogawa in the headlight unit as taught by Hamada. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having a cured film to block light (Hamada, [0355]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 4-6 and 19-20 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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. DORIS L. LEE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1764 /DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/450,368 Page 2 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/450,368 Page 3 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/450,368 Page 4 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 18/450,368 Page 5 Art Unit: 1764
Prosecution Insights