DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2022/0195228) in view of Song et al. (2021/0296589).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a first compound with a chemical formula 1 ([0014]-[0024]), a first solvent with a chemical formula 2 ([0025], ethyl 4-methylbenzoate) and a second solvent with a third chemical formula ([0400], diisopropyl-1,1’ biphenyl). Note that these are the same exact components making up elected Example 4 of Table 1 in the immediate application, and thus it is inherent within the reference that all limitations are met.
Park teaches an additional dopant ([0035]) but not a blue dopant. Song teaches a blue dopant with Chemical Formula A (Song, [0080]-[0081], Formula 5-1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the blue dopant of Song to the ink composition of Park because doing so would amount to combining a known ink/solvent system with a known dopant to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Song teaches a first compound with a chemical formula 1, wherein the compound represented by chemical formula 1 is substituted with at least one deuterium (Park, [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, wherein the first solvent has a boiling point of 180 degrees C to 270 degrees C (Park, Note that this is the case for ethyl 4-methylbenzoate).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, wherein the second solvent has a boiling point of 240 degrees C to 350 degrees C (Park, Note that this is the case for diisopropyl-1,1’ biphenyl).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, note that the three chemical formulas are the same, and thus all other conditions are being taken to be met.
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, note that the three chemical formulas are the same, and thus all other conditions are being taken to be met.
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, wherein the second solvent comprises two or more of the solvents represented by Chemical Formula 3 and different from each other
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, wherein the first solvent and the second solvent are comprised at a weight ratio of 95:5 to 50:50 (Park, [0400]).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, further comprising an addition compound (see all of disclosed of Park).
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, wherein the compound represented by chemical formula 1 is deuterated by at least 10% (Park, [0015]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, note that the three chemical formulas are the same, and thus all other conditions are being taken to be met.
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, note that the three chemical formulas are the same, and thus all other conditions are being taken to be met.
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, note that the three chemical formulas are the same, and thus all other conditions are being taken to be met.
Regarding claim 17, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, note that the ethyl 4-methylbenzoate meets the limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Song teaches the composition according to claim 1, note that diisopropyl-1,1’ biphenyl meets the limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
