Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/868,624

ACTINIC RADIATION-CURABLE INKJET RESIST INK, METHOD FOR FORMING CURED FILM, CURED FILM, PRINTED WIRING BOARD, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 22, 2024
Examiner
SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Konica Minolta Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
720 granted / 1007 resolved
+6.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1051
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
61.2%
+21.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1007 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Note Applicant’s response filed on 02/26/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 16 and 17 are added and claims 1-17 are pending. 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. Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2015/0015648 A1) in view of Koyama et al. (JP 2013149592 A) and Takaku et al. (US 2017/0342283 A1). Claims 1, 3 and 10: Ikeda teaches a radiation curable ink jet ink comprising a photopolymerization compound (abstract), a pigment [0112] and a dispersant [0121]. The photopolymerization compound meets the claimed compound (A), the pigment meets the claimed pigment (B) and the dispersant meets the claimed dispersing agent (C). Ikeda teaches the pigment comprises at least one pigments [0112], and lists Pigment Red 5, 22, 38, 48:1, 48:2, 48:4, 49:1, 53:1, 57:1, 63:1, 112, 122, 123, 144, 146, 168, 184 and 185 [0113] as suitable examples of the pigment. It is interpreted that these red pigments have a maximum absorption wavelength of 480-600 nm because they are identical to the red pigments listed in [0073] of the current specification. Even though more than one pigment can be used [0112], Ikeda does not teach combining the red pigment with another pigment having a different color. However, Koyama teaches a colored film comprising a red colored film formed of using a red colored composition containing a red pigment such as Pigment Red 179 in combination with an orange and/or yellow pigment (page 4, lines 24-30). The red pigment meets the claimed red pigment (B1) and the orange and/or yellow pigment meet the claimed pigment (B2). It is interpreted that the Pigment Red 179 has a maximum absorption wavelength of 480-600 nm because it is identical to one of the red pigments listed in [0073] of the current specification. Ikeda and Koyama are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the composition art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine red color composition of Koyama with the invention of Ikeda and the motivation would be to provide a composition having the desired shade of color. Ikeda does not teach the dispersant has an amine value larger than an acid value. However, Takaku teaches a radiation curable ink jet ink comprising a BYK JET-9151 pigment dispersant [0102]. It is interpreted that the BYK JET-9151 dispersant has an amine value larger than an acid value because it is identical to one of the dispersing agents listed in [0085] of the current specification. Ikeda and Takaku are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the composition art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the dispersant of Takaku with the invention of Ikeda and the motivation would be, as Takaku suggested, to increase dispersibility of the pigment [0099]. Ikeda does not expressly teach the radiation curable ink jet ink comprises halogen. Ikeda teaches the radiation curable ink jet ink comprises a photopolymerization initiator ([0101]-[0110]) and some of the suitable examples of the initiator are chlorine based [0104]; however, the presence of the chlorine based initiators in the radiation curable ink jet ink is not required. Therefore, it is interpreted that the radiation curable ink jet ink is halogen free {instant claim 10}. Ikeda teaches black pigment and black dye as suitable examples of the colorant ([0111]-[0113], [0119] and [0171]); however, the presence of the black pigment in the radiation curable ink jet ink is not required. Therefore, it is interpreted that the radiation curable ink jet ink is black pigment free {instant claim 3}. Claim 2: Ikeda teaches the radiation curable ink jet ink comprises a synergist [0121]. Claim 4: Ikeda teaches the photopolymerization compound has a C log P value of 4-7 [0061] in an amount of 10-40 wt% [0074]. Claim 5: Ikeda teaches the photopolymerization compound has a molecular weight of 280-1,500 [0060]. Claim 6: Ikeda teaches the photopolymerization compound has two or more functional group [0059]. Claim 7: Ikeda teaches suitable examples of the photopolymerization compound ([0069]-[0073]). Claim 8: Ikeda teaches the radiation curable ink jet ink comprises a gelling agent [0082]. Claim 9: Ikeda teaches the radiation curable ink jet ink has a viscosity of 1,000 mPa.s or more at 25 ̊C [0129] and undergoes a sol-gel transition at 80 ̊C [0128]. Claims 11 and 13: Ikeda teaches applying the radiation curable ink jet ink onto a recording medium and curing the applied radiation curable ink jet ink irradiation [0136] forming a cured film {instant claim 13} [0126]. Claims 14 and 15: Ikeda teaches the radiation curable ink jet ink recording can be used as printed circuit boards [0002]; use of printed circuit board in a modern electronic device {instant clam 15} is notoriously known before the effective filing date of the invention so as to provide flexible device. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2015/0015648 A1), Koyama et al. (JP 2013149592 A) and Takaku et al. (US 2017/0342283 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Furuno et al. (US 2008/0218574 A1). Ikeda, Koyama and Takaku teach the claimed invention as set forth above. Claim 12: Ikeda does not teach heating after irradiation. However, Furuno teaches providing a drying process after a process of irradiating in a recording method ([0002] and [0106]). Ikeda and Furuno are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet recording art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the drying process after the irradiating process of Furuno with the invention of Ikeda, and the motivation would be to reduce energy consumption and to remove solvent. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2015/0015648 A1), Koyama et al. (JP 2013149592 A) and Takaku et al. (US 2017/0342283 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umebayashi et al (US 2007/0225404 A1) and Kumazawa et al. (US 2002/0031723 A1). Ikeda, Koyama and Takaku teach the claimed invention as set forth above. Claims 16 and 17: Ikeda does not teach dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate as a suitable example of the photopolymerization compound in an ink jet ink composition (abstract, [0049] and [0057]). However, Umebayashi teaches an ink jet ink composition comprising a dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate {instant claim 17} as a polymerizable compound (abstract and [0057]). Ikeda and Umebayashi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet ink composition art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate with the invention of Ikeda, and the motivation for combining would be, as Kumazawa suggested, for improving coating properties (see [0019] of Kumazawa). Response to Arguments Applicant’s argument is based on that because the amine value of the pigment dispersing agent contained in the ink is higher than the acid value thereof, enhanced interaction between the pigment dispersing agent and the pigment can be obtained and enhanced dispersion stability of the pigment can be obtained; and such superiority of property is evidence of non-obviousness. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. Even though Ikeda does not teach the dispersant in the ink jet ink has amine value larger than it’s acid value, the Examiner introduced the reference of Takaku to teach the claimed dispersant with amine value larger than it’s acid value. Takaku teaches use of BYK JET-9151 pigment dispersant [0102] which has an amine value of 18 mg/KOH and an acid value of 8 MG/KOH (see page 21, line 20 of current specification). Therefore, the claimed dispersant having amine value larger than it’s acid value has been expressly taught by the reference of Takaku; and the motivation for combining Ikeda and Takaku would be to increase dispersibility of the pigment (see [0099] of Takaku). Applicant argued that the inclusion of BYK-JET-9151 dispersion agent can increase the dispersion stability of a pigment and the ejection stability of the ink after long-term storage. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. The fact that the Applicant uses the BYK-JET-9151 dispersion agent for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art composition would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the prior art. In re Lintner, 173 USPQ 560. Applicant further argued that Applicant’s experimental result proves that, when the active ray-curable inkjet resist ink is substantially free of a black inorganic pigment as BB1-BB18, the ejection stability, the solder heat resistance and adhesion to base material are improved as compared to BB19 including a lot of black pigment; and such superiority of property is evidence of non-obviousness. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. The specification shows the different results based on the presence and absence of the black pigment. The examiner showed that even though Ikeda lists the black pigment as one of the pigments in the ink jet ink composition, Ikeda does not expressly teach that the presence of the black pigment in the ink jet ink is a requirement; therefore, the presence of the black pigment is optional which meets the claimed limitation of “---ink is substantially free of a black inorganic pigment.” For the above reasons claims 1-15 stand rejected and claims 16-17 are included in the prior art rejections. 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. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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. BS March 19, 2026 /BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570076
FILM AND LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565022
Insulative Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558913
RECORDING MATERIAL FOR DYE SUBLIMATION PRINTING HAVING IMPROVED TRANSPORT PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12533866
INFRARED ADAPTIVE TRANSPARENT CAMOUFLAGE FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12534636
EXTERIOR WINDOW FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1007 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month