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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendment received on 01/05/2026:
• Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are currently pending. Claim 4 is canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite the ink as comprising a “styrene-maleic acid resin”, which is not fully supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure only provides support for a water-soluble styrene-maleic acid resin (see Applicant’s specification at para. 0025), rather than the broad range of styrene-maleic acid resins as currently claimed (e.g., claim 1 as currently written may include water-insoluble styrene-maleic acid resins). To correct, the Examiner suggests moving claim 8 up into independent claim 1. Claims 2, 3, and 5-9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deardurff (US-20190249023-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Deardurff”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (WO-2015111645-A1), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Deardurff teaches an ink composition for ink jet pigment textile printing (see Deardurff at para. 0046, teaching an ink which may be used in an inkjet process; also see Deardurff at para. 0045, teaching the substrate may include fabrics, which are a textile) comprising:
• a dispersion of a self-dispersing carbon black pigment containing a phosphate group, wherein an absolute value of a zeta potential V1 of the dispersion is 65 mV or less (see Deardurff at para. 0010, teaching an ink containing a self-dispersed pigment; also see Deardurff at para. 0018, teaching Cab-O-Jet 400K as a suitable self-dispersed pigment; Cab-O-Jet 400K meets the claimed limitations, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification at para. 0064); and
• a styrene-maleic acid resin (see Deardurff at para. 0029 and 0031, teaching the ink may contain acidic polymeric binder particles, including copolymers that include a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic component; also see Deardurff at para. 0031, teaching the hydrophobic component may be styrene; also see Deardurff at para. 0032, teaching the hydrophilic monomer, i.e., the acidic monomer, may include maleic acid; accordingly, Deardurff necessarily teaches their acidic polymeric binder particles may be a copolymer of styrene and maleic acid, i.e., a styrene-maleic acid resin).
While Deardurff teaches the ink outlined above, Deardurff fails to explicitly teach the ink as comprising an acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of 10 or more; and an acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of less than 10, wherein a content of the acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of 10 or more is in a range of 0.3% by mass to 1.5% by mass with respect to a total mass of the ink composition, and a content of the acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of less than 10 is in a range of 0.1% by mass to 0.7% by mass with respect to the total mass of the ink composition.
However, Sato teaches an aqueous ink jet ink composition which may contain a self-dispersible pigment with a polar group (see Sato at pg. 1, para. 1; and pg. 3, para. 10). Sato further teaches their ink as containing an acetylenic diol surfactant having a low HLB of 4 to 9 and an acetylenic diol surfactant having a high HLB of 13 to 16 (see Sato at pg. 2, para. 11 and pg. 3, para. 1). Moreover, Sato teaches the low HLB surfactant as promoting wetting on a recording medium’s surface and fully expanding the dots of the ink, and that the high HLB surfactant causes the ink droplets to uniformly spread on the recording medium, helping to form a uniform image (see Sato at pg. 3, para. 2-3). Additionally, Sato teaches the content of the low HLB surfactant (surfactant A) to range from 0.1 to 10 mass% in the ink from the viewpoint of dot expandability and storage stability, and further teaches the content of the high HLB surfactant (surfactant B) to range from 0.1 to 10 mass% from the viewpoint of storage stability and uniformity of the printed matter (see Sato at pg. 6, para. 9; and pg. 6, para. 11). Moreover, Sato teaches Surfynol 465 as a suitable surfactant having a high HLB value (see Sato at pg. 6, para. 10).
Deardurff teaches their ink may include a combination of surfactants, and further teaches acytelenic surfactants, including Surfynol 465, may be present in their ink (see Deardurff at para. 0042 and Table 1 at pg. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a low HLB-value acetylenic diol surfactant (HLB of 4 to 9) and a high HLB-value acetylenic diol surfactant (HLB of 13 to 16, e.g., Surfynol 465) as the surfactant in the ink of Deardurff. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to promote wetting on the surface of a recording medium, to fully expand the dots of the ink, to uniformly spread the dots on a recording medium, and to form a more uniform image (see Sato at pg. 3, para. 2-3).
Moreover, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the content of the low HLB-value acetylenic diol surfactant to range from 0.1 to 10 mass% and the content of the high HLB-value acetylenic diol surfactant to range from 0.1 to 10 mass% in the ink of modified Deardurff. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve dot expandability, storage stability, and uniformity of the printed matter (see Sato at pg. 6, para. 9; and pg. 6, para. 11).
These ranges overlap the respective claimed ranges for the two surfactants, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. Further, the low-HLB surfactant has an HLB value from 4 to 9, which falls within the claimed range of “less than 10”, and the high-HLB surfactant has an HLB of 13 to 16, which falls within the claimed range of “10 or more”. Additionally, both surfactants are acetylenic diol surfactants, i.e., acetylenic glycol surfactants.
Regarding claim 2, while modified Deardurff teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Deardurff fails to teach their ink as further containing urethane resin particles. However, Deardurff suggests the acidic polymeric binder particles may be used in combinations thereof, i.e., two or more (see Deardurff at para. 0010). Moreover, Deardurff teaches the acidic polymeric binder particles may be a polyurethane polymer (see Deardurff at para. 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use both a polyurethane polymer and a styrene-maleic acid resin polymer in the ink of Deardurff, as Deardurff teaches both as suitable polymers, and further suggests two or more polymers may be used in combination (see Deardurff at para. 0010). Moreover, combining two or more materials disclosed by the prior art for the same purpose to form a third material that is to be used for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06.
Regarding claim 9, see Deardurff at para. 0010, teaching the content of the acidic polymeric binder particles to range from 0.5 to 5 wt% in the ink; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deardurff in view of Sato, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imanishi et al. (JP-2019042990-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Imanishi”).
Regarding claims 5-7, while modified Deardurff teaches the ink composition according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Deardurff fails to explicitly teach an ink set containing the ink and a treatment solution composition, wherein the treatment solution composition contains a cationic compound, wherein the cationic compound is one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvalent metal salts, cationic resins, and cationic surfactants. Moreover, Deardurff fails to explicitly teach a recording method comprising: a treatment solution application step of applying a treatment solution composition containing a cationic compound to fabric; and an ink application step of applying the ink composition for ink jet pigment textile printing according to claim 1 to the fabric by discharging the ink composition for ink jet pigment textile printing by an ink jet process.
However, Imanishi teaches a pretreatment liquid for a porous material containing water, flat particles, and a polyvalent metal salt (see Imanishi at pg. 2, para. 5 and pg. 9, para. 2). Imanishi further teaches when a surface material is pretreated with the pretreatment liquid in advance, the penetration of the ink into the substrate can be suppressed, and an image of high color development can be formed on the surface of the porous material (see Imanishi at pg. 2, para. 8). Moreover, Imanishi teaches the flat particles in the pretreatment liquid as improving gloss of the image and the coloring property (see Imanishi at pg. 3, para. 7-8). Additionally, Imanishi teaches the pretreatment liquid may be used together with an aqueous ink, which may contain a self-dispersing pigment from the CAB-O-JET series as well as a urethane water-dispersible resin (see Imanishi at pg. 11, para. 6; pg. 13, para. 1; and pg. 14, para. 2). Furthermore, Imanishi teaches a method in which the pretreatment liquid is applied to the porous material, followed by inkjet printing of the aqueous ink (see Imanishi at pg. 15, para. 6).
Deardurff teaches their ink composition to be used on porous substrates (see Deardurff at para. 0044), and further teaches fabric as a suitable porous substrate (see Deardurff at para. 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pretreatment liquid of Imanishi together with the ink of modified Deardurff in an ink set, in which the pretreatment liquid is applied to a porous substrate (e.g., fabric) prior to the inkjet application of the ink. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve color development of the image, image gloss, and coloring property (see Imanishi at pg. 2, para. 8; and pg. 3, para. 7-8).
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowinski et al. (US-20130278689-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Sowinski”) in view of Deardurff and Sato.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Sowinski teaches an ink composition (see Sowinski at para. 0050) containing:
• a water-soluble styrene-maleic acid resin (see Sowinski at para. 0071, teaching the ink may contain a polymer, such as a water-soluble polyacrylate polymers; also see Sowinski at para. 0071, teaching styrene-maleic acid copolymers as suitable water-soluble polyacrylate polymers).
While Sowinski teaches the ink above, Sowinski fails to explicitly teach:
(1.) the ink as containing a dispersion of a self-dispersing carbon black pigment containing a phosphate group, wherein an absolute value of a zeta potential V of the dispersion is 65 mV or less, and
(2.) the ink as comprising an acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of 10 or more; and an acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of less than 10, wherein a content of the acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of 10 or more is in a range of 0.3% by mass to 1.5% by mass with respect to a total mass of the ink composition, and a content of the acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of less than 10 is in a range of 0.1% by mass to 0.7% by mass with respect to the total mass of the ink composition.
Regarding (1.), Deardurff teaches an ink composition containing a self-dispersed pigment (see Deardurff at para. 0011 and 0045). Deardurff further teaches the self-dispersed pigment may include Cab-O-Jet 400K (see Deardurff at para. 0018).
Sowinski teaches their ink may include a self-dispersing pigment, including Cab-O-Jet 400 series (see Sowinski at para. 0060).
In this case, Cab-O-Jet 400K is a known Cab-O-Jet 400 series carbon black pigment suitable for use as a pigment dispersion in an ink composition (as exemplified by Deardurff at para. 0018), and thus its use in the composition of Sowinski would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cab-O-Jet 400K as the pigment in the ink composition of Sowinski, as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Combining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding (2.), Sato teaches an aqueous ink jet ink composition which may contain a self-dispersible pigment with a polar group (see Sato at pg. 1, para. 1; and pg. 3, para. 10). Sato further teaches their ink as containing an acetylenic diol surfactant having a low HLB of 4 to 9 and an acetylenic diol surfactant having a high HLB of 13 to 16 (see Sato at pg. 2, para. 11 and pg. 3, para. 1). Moreover, Sato teaches the low HLB surfactant as promoting wetting on a recording medium’s surface and fully expanding the dots of the ink, and that the high HLB surfactant causes the ink droplets to uniformly spread on the recording medium, helping to form a uniform image (see Sato at pg. 3, para. 2-3). Additionally, Sato teaches the content of the low HLB surfactant (surfactant A) to range from 0.1 to 10 mass% in the ink from the viewpoint of dot expandability and storage stability, and further teaches the content of the high HLB surfactant (surfactant B) to range from 0.1 to 10 mass% from the viewpoint of storage stability and uniformity of the printed matter (see Sato at pg. 6, para. 9; and pg. 6, para. 11). Moreover, Sato teaches Surfynol 465 as a suitable surfactant having a high HLB value (see Sato at pg. 6, para. 10).
Sowinski teaches the ink may include a surfactant (see Sowinski at para. 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a low HLB-value acetylenic diol surfactant (HLB of 4 to 9) and a high HLB-value acetylenic diol surfactant (HLB of 13 to 16, e.g., Surfynol 465) as the surfactant in the ink of modified Sowinski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to promote wetting on the surface of a recording medium, to fully expand the dots of the ink, to uniformly spread the dots on a recording medium, and to form a more uniform image (see Sato at pg. 3, para. 2-3).
Moreover, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the content of the low HLB-value acetylenic diol surfactant to range from 0.1 to 10 mass% and the content of the high HLB-value acetylenic diol surfactant to range from 0.1 to 10 mass% in the ink of modified Sowinski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve dot expandability, storage stability, and uniformity of the printed matter (see Sato at pg. 6, para. 9; and pg. 6, para. 11).
These ranges overlap the respective claimed ranges for the two surfactants, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. Further, the low-HLB surfactant has an HLB value from 4 to 9, which falls within the claimed range of “less than 10”, and the high-HLB surfactant has an HLB of 13 to 16, which falls within the claimed range of “10 or more”. Additionally, both surfactants are acetylenic diol surfactants, i.e., acetylenic glycol surfactants.
It is noted that the limitation of claim 1 claiming the ink to be used “for ink jet pigment textile printing” is a recitation of intended use. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the limitation. See MPEP § 2111.
Regarding claim 2, see Sowinski at para. 0071, teaching their ink may contain a polyurethane latex binder in addition to the water soluble polyacrylate copolymer.
Regarding claim 9, see Sowinski at para. 0071, teaching the content of the water-soluble polyacrylate to range from 0.1 to 6.0% by mass in the ink; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowinski in view of Deardurff and Sato, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imanishi.
Regarding claims 5-7, while modified Sowinski teaches the ink composition according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Sowinski fails to explicitly teach an ink set containing the ink and a treatment solution composition, wherein the treatment solution composition contains a cationic compound, wherein the cationic compound is one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvalent metal salts, cationic resins, and cationic surfactants. Moreover, Sowinski fails to explicitly teach a recording method comprising: a treatment solution application step of applying a treatment solution composition containing a cationic compound to fabric; and an ink application step of applying the ink composition for ink jet pigment textile printing according to claim 1 to the fabric by discharging the ink composition for ink jet pigment textile printing by an ink jet process.
However, Imanishi teaches a pretreatment liquid for a porous material containing water, flat particles, and a polyvalent metal salt (see Imanishi at pg. 2, para. 5 and pg. 9, para. 2). Imanishi further teaches when a surface material is pretreated with the pretreatment liquid in advance, the penetration of the ink into the substrate can be suppressed, and an image of high color development can be formed on the surface of the porous material (see Imanishi at pg. 2, para. 8). Moreover, Imanishi teaches the flat particles in the pretreatment liquid as improving gloss of the image and the coloring property (see Imanishi at pg. 3, para. 7-8). Additionally, Imanishi teaches the pretreatment liquid may be used together with an aqueous ink, which may contain a self-dispersing pigment from the CAB-O-JET series as well as a urethane water-dispersible resin (see Imanishi at pg. 11, para. 6; pg. 13, para. 1; and pg. 14, para. 2). Furthermore, Imanishi teaches a method in which the pretreatment liquid is applied to the porous material, followed by inkjet printing of the aqueous ink (see Imanishi at pg. 15, para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pretreatment liquid of Imanishi together with the ink of modified Sowinski in an ink set, in which the pretreatment liquid is applied to a porous substrate (e.g., fabric) prior to the inkjet application of the ink. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve color development of the image, image gloss, and coloring property (see Imanishi at pg. 2, para. 8; and pg. 3, para. 7-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
With respect to independent claim 3, the prior art fails to explicitly teach or suggest an ink composition for ink jet pigment textile printing comprising: a dispersion of a self-dispersing carbon black pigment containing a phosphate group, a styrene-maleic acid resin, an acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of 10 or more; an acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of less than 10, wherein a content of the acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of 10 or more is in a range of 0.3% by mass to 1.5% by mass with respect to a total mass of the ink composition, a content of the acetylene glycol surfactant with an HLB value of less than 10 is in a range of 0.1% by mass to 0.7% by mass with respect to the total mass of the ink composition, an absolute value of a zeta potential V1 of the dispersion is 65 mV or less, wherein the ink further contains non-crosslinkable urethane resin particles.
The closest prior art includes Deardurff (US-20190249023-A1) and Sowinski (US-20130278689-A1). While Deardurff and Sowinski teach most of the claimed limitations, neither Deardurff nor Sowinski teach or suggest the use of non-crosslinkable urethane resin particles in their compositions. The prior art rarely distinguishes between crosslinkable and non-crosslinkable urethane resin particles, and there is no teaching or suggestion to specifically include the latter in the inks of Deardurff or Sowinski. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion that the specific urethane resin particles taught by Deardurff and Sowinski, i.e., the acidic polymeric binder particles and the polyurethane latex binder (see claim 1 rejections above), would suitably function in their respective inks as non-crosslinkable particles, particularly in combination with the styrene-maleic acid resin. Consequently, claim 3 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth below.
Applicants argue neither Deardurff or Guo teach or suggest the use of a styrene-maleic acid resin (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 5). The Examiner agrees regarding Guo and has withdrawn the previous rejection over Guo. However, Deardurff does suggest the use of a styrene-maleic acid resin (see claim 1 rejection over Deardurff above). Moreover, a new grounds of rejection over Sowinski is presented, see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/JEFFREY EUGENE BARZACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights