DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This application is a CON of PCT/JP22/16191, filed on 03/30/2022, which is entitled to and claims the benefit of priority of JP Patent App. No. 2021-072704, filed 04/22/2021. The preliminary amendment filed on 04/07/2026 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3,6-8 with traverse in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged. Because examiner did not distinctly and specifically point out the restriction requirement, the restriction is hereby withdrawn.
4. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements submitted on 09/26/2023, and 06/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statements.
Drawings
6. The drawing is received on 09/26/2023. This drawing is acceptable.
Priority
7. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 11/21/2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a content of Pigment Yellow 185 in the colorant (A) of the green pixel is 49 weight% to 59 weight%”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, if the recited amount is based the total red, green and blue pixels or based on the cured product of the photosensitive coloring composition, thus claim 1 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope. Claims 2-8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
10. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the term “(in General Formula (1)… CH₂O(C=O)C=CH₂)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention. Claims 2-8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
11. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “a content of the colorant of red pixel, green pixel, and blue pixel”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, if the recited amount is based the total red, green and blue pixels or based on the cured product of the photosensitive coloring composition, thus claim 2 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope.
12. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the term “(in General Formula (2),…optionally has a substituent)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
13. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the term “(in General Formula (3),… having 1 to 6 carbon atoms)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishio et al. (JP2021-044410 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’410”) in view of Ogata et al. (JP2010-189560 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’560”), optionally Ishimaru et al. (JP2008-268739 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’739”), and Fujii et al. (JP2009-265641 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’641”), optionally Oda et al. (JPWO2018-151044 A1, machine translation, hereinafter “’044”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘410 teaches an organic electroluminescent (EL) display device (Page 6/72, [0001]) comprising, on a silicon substrate on which a driving element is formed (Page 8/71, [0010]), an organic EL layer and a color filter, the color filter comprising pixels including a red pixel, a green pixel, and a blue pixel (Page 3/72, Claim 1; Page 8/72, [0010]), the film thickness of the pixels being 1.5 µm (Page 8/72, [0010]; Page 10/72, [0020], Page 63/73, [0246]). The spectral transmittance of the red pixel being such that the maximum transmittance of light in a wavelength range of 450-560 nm is 0.2% or less, and the transmittance of light in a wavelength range of 600-700 nm is from 80% to less than 100%, the spectral transmittance of the green pixel being such that the maximum transmittance of light in a wavelength range of 400-470 nm is 2% or less, the transmittance of light of a wavelength of 520 nm is 70% or greater, and the transmittance of light of a wavelength of 550 nm is 60% or less, and the spectral transmittance of the blue pixel being such that the maximum transmittance of light in a wavelength range of 500-560 nm is less than 20% (Page 67/72, [0255], Example 1, Table 5). ‘410 teaches each pixel comprising a coloring agent, trimethylolpropane triacrylate, which is a photopolymerizable monomer, a photopolymerization initiator OXE 02, and a photosensitive resin (Page 58/72, [0237], Production Example 1), the coloring agents of the red pixel being PR 254 (Page 52/72, [0214]) and PY139 (Page 53/72, [0215]), the coloring agents of the green pixel being PG58 (Page 53/72, [0217]), PY185 (Page 53/72, [0216]), and PB15:3 (Page 54/72, [0219]), of the coloring agents of the green pixel, the proportion of the PY185 being 34 wt%, and the coloring agents of the blue pixel being PB 15:6 (Page 53/72, [0218]), and PV23 (Page 54/72, [0220]), and Xanthene dye (Pages 14-15/72, [0039]-[0043]). ‘410 does not expressly teach i) the red pixel, the 50% half-value wavelength is 593-603 nm, and the coloring agent contains Pigment Red 177, and ii) the green pixel, the transmittance at a wavelength of 525-535 nm is 67% or greater, the 50% half-value wavelength
of the short wavelength side is 497-507 nm, the 50% half-value wavelength of the long wavelength side is 554-581 nm, the coloring agent includes one or more selected from the group consisting of Pigment Green 36, Pigment Green 62, Pigment Green 63, and Pigment Green 59, and of the coloring agents of the green pixel, the content of Pigment Yellow 185 is 49-59 wt%.
Referring to i), ‘410 teaches the use of C.I. Pigment Red 254 and C.I. Pigment Red 177 is preferable as the red pigment from the viewpoint of obtaining high coloring power (Page 12/72, [0025]). ‘560 teaches in Example 4, R-2 (SR89), RP-1 (PR254), RP-2 (PR177), and YP-2 (PY139) are used as coloring agents, and that the 50% half value
wavelength was set to around 595 nm (Page 28/39, [0071]; Page 30/39, [0071]; Page 31/39, [0080]; Page37/39, Fig. 5) with benefit of providing a red coloring composition for realizing a red color filter having high lightness for improving visibility of a liquid crystal display device without using a backlight having high luminance (Page 2/39, Abstract). Optionally, ‘739 teaches 50% arrival wavelength is set to 595-598 nm, and PR 254 and PR 177 are used as coloring agents.
In Examples 1-3 (Page19/31, Table 3) with benefit of providing a color filter substrate which is excellent in environmental resistance and has excellent red color reproducibility even when a pseudo white LED obtained by combining a blue LED and a yellow phosphor (YAG system) and mixing the colors is used for a backlight, and to provide an on-vehicle liquid crystal display device using the color filter substrate (Page 2/32, Abstract).
Referring to ii), ‘410 teaches the use the green pigment, PG 36 and PG 58 are preferable from the viewpoint of obtaining high coloring power (Page 12/72, [0026]). ‘641 teaches the wavelengths at which the transmittance of the green color filter becomes 50% are 500 nm and 561 nm, and the transmittance at 530 nm is 68% as shown in Example 7 (Page 44/63, [0113], Table 2; Page 54/63, Fig. 4) with benefit of providing green pixel region, and a light transmission factor of the green pixel region is 15% or less over a range of 600 to 650 nm (Page 9/63, [0011]), and further provide a color filter suitable for improving color purity of an organic EL display element (Page 9/63, [0010]). Optionally, ‘044 teaches in the green pixel, a green colorant having a metal phthalocyanine skeleton and a yellow colorant containing PY 185 are used (Page 6/24, [0012]). ‘044 teaches PY185 is preferable from the perspectives of improving light transmittance and the light transmittance retention rate, wherein the content of PY185 is set to 50-90 mass%, inclusive (Page 6/24, [0013]) with benefit of providing to suppress a decrease in transmittance due to light irradiation, and therefore, when the content of CI Pigment Yellow 185 in the coloring material whose light transmittance is likely to decrease is 50% by mass or more and 90% by mass or less, a higher effect is exhibited (Page 6/24, [0013]).
In an analogous art of the organic EL display device comprising a color filter, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the red pixel by ‘410, so as to include
the red pixel, the 50% half-value wavelength is 593-603 nm, and the coloring agent contains Pigment Red 177 as taught by ‘560 or ‘739, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a red coloring composition for realizing a red color filter having high lightness for improving visibility of a liquid crystal display device without using a backlight having high luminance as suggested by ‘560 (Page 2/39, Abstract) or providing a color filter substrate which is excellent in environmental resistance and has excellent red color reproducibility even when a pseudo white LED obtained by combining a blue LED and a yellow phosphor (YAG system) and mixing the colors is used for a backlight, and to provide an on-vehicle liquid crystal display device using the color filter substrate as suggested by ‘739 (Page 2/32, Abstract).
In an analogous art of the organic EL display device comprising a color filter, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the green pixel by ‘410, so as to include
the green pixel, the transmittance at a wavelength of 525-535 nm is 67% or greater, the 50% half-value wavelength of the short wavelength side is 497-507 nm, the 50% half-value wavelength of the long wavelength side is 554-581 nm, the coloring agent includes one or more selected from the group consisting of Pigment Green 36, Pigment Green 62, Pigment Green 63, and Pigment Green 59, and of the coloring agents of the green pixel, the content of Pigment Yellow 185 is 49-59 wt% as taught by ‘641 or ‘044, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing green pixel region, and a light transmission factor of the green pixel region is 15% or less over a range of 600 to 650 nm (Page 9/63, [0011]), and further provide a color filter suitable for improving color purity of an organic EL display element as suggested by ‘641(Page 9/63, [0010]) or providing to suppress a decrease in transmittance due to light irradiation, and therefore, when the content of CI Pigment Yellow 185 in the coloring material whose light transmittance is likely to decrease is 50% by mass or more and 90% by mass or less, a higher effect is exhibited as suggested by ‘044 (Page 6/24, [0013]).
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of ‘410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044, is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. 410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type and amount of pixels comprising red, green, and blue pixels (variables) in each dispersion composition determine (affect) the transmittance at a wavelength (property) of the composition for color filter, establishing that the type and amount of pixels comprising red, green, and blue pixels in each dispersion composition are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the transmittance is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044, is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘410 teaches the organic electroluminescent (EL) display device (Page 6/72, [0001]),
wherein a content of the compound represented by General Formula (1) with respect to a total amount of the photopolymerizable monomer (B) is 50 weight% or more (Page 8/72, [010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044, is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘410 teaches the organic electroluminescent (EL) display device (Page 6/72, [0001]),
wherein the oxime ester photopolymerization initiator is a compound represented by the General Formula (2) (Page 25/72, [0092]).
Regarding claim 6: The disclosure of ‘410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044, is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘410 teaches the organic electroluminescent (EL) display device (Page 6/72, [0001]),
wherein the resin (D) includes a photosensitive resin (Page 52/72, [0212]-[0213]).
Regarding claim 7: The disclosure of ‘410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044, is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘410 teaches the organic electroluminescent (EL) display device (Page 6/72, [0001]),
wherein the resin (D) includes a photosensitive resin such as benzyl methacrylate (Page 52/72, [0212]-[0213]).
Regarding claim 8: The disclosure of ‘410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044, is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘410 teaches the organic electroluminescent (EL) display device (Page 6/72, [0001]), wherein the photosensitive coloring composition further contains a solvent, and the solvent includes an ether ester solvent and an ether alcohol solvent (Page42/72, [0170]).
15. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishio et al. (JP2021-044410 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’410”) in view of Ogata et al. (JP2010-189560 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’560”), optionally Ishimaru et al. (JP2008-268739 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’739”), and Fujii et al. (JP2009-265641 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’641”), optionally Oda et al. (JPWO2018-151044 A1, machine translation, hereinafter “’044”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (JP2017-167399 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’399”).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044, is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. 410 in view of ‘560 or optionally ‘739, and ‘641, optionally ‘044 does not expressly teach the oxime ester photopolymerization initiator is a compound represented by the General Formula (3) as set forth.
However, ‘399 teaches a photosensitive colored resin composition for a color filter contains a coloring material, an alkali-soluble resin, a photopolymerizable compound, a photoinitiator, and a solvent, wherein the photoinitiator contains a compound represented by general formula (1) as set forth (Page 2/60, Abstract; Page 7/60, [0010]) with benefit of providing a photosensitive coloring resin composition that has excellent hardenability, has a high residual film ratio, and reduces a variation insensitivity even after cold storage (Page 8/60, [0011]).
In an analogous art of the organic EL display device comprising a color filter, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photopolymerization initiator by ‘410, so as to include the oxime ester photopolymerization initiator is a compound represented by the General Formula (3) as set forth as taught by ‘399, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a photosensitive coloring resin composition that has excellent hardenability, has a high residual film ratio, and reduces a variation insensitivity even after cold storage as suggested by ‘399 (Page 8/60, [0011]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two photopolymerization initiators) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
Examiner Information
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
04/21/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights