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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 2020097141 A), hereinafter “Kobayashi”, wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1,
Kobayashi teaches inkjet printing using an aqueous ink (i.e., water-based ink) ([0019]). Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of organic solvents such as propylene glycol, butanediol ([0121]), and further teaches 1,3-butanediol ([0133]), polypropylene glycol (i.e., tripropylene glycol), and diethylene glycol ([0121]). The solvent may be used alone or in combinations of two or more ([0121]). The ink contains organic solvent that is mixed with water; therefore, the organic solvent is water-soluble ([0036]). Kobayashi teaches the solvent makes up 15% to 45% by mass ([0134-0135]), which encompasses the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a colorant, such as pigments ([0038]).
Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a resin such as polyolefins ([0034]), the polyolefin resin is dispersed in a solvent to form an emulsion ([0111]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would recognize that if the resin is dispersed within the solvent to form the emulsion, then the resin would have to be broken down into smaller particles within the solvent, which reads on resin minute particles and emulsion particles.
Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a surfactant, such as acetylene glycol-based and polyoxyethylene-based surfactants ([0139-140]). Kobayashi teaches an example of a surfactant as SURFYNOL 440, an acetylene dialcohol-based surfactant ([0166]), which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would recognize that SURFYNOL 440 have a solubility in water at 20˚C in a range of 0.05% and 0.2% by mass. The surfactant makes up the ink from 0.001% to 5% by mass and more preferably from 0.001 to 3% by mass ([0145]), which overlaps the present claim of the surfactant being not less than 2% by mass and not more than 2.7% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11,
Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a resin such as polyolefins ([0034]), the polyolefin resin is dispersed in a solvent to form an emulsion ([0111]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would recognize that if the resin is dispersed within the solvent to form the emulsion, then the resin would have to be broken down into smaller particles within the solvent, which reads on resin minute particles and emulsion particles.
Regarding claim 13,
Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a resin such as polyolefins ([0034]), the polyolefin resin is dispersed in a solvent to form an emulsion ([0111]), which reads on resin minute particles. Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a surfactant, such as acetylene glycol-based surfactants ([0139-140]). Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of organic solvents such as propylene glycol ([0121]). Kobayashi teaches the solvent makes up 15% to 45% by mass ([0134-0135]), which overlaps the present claim of the water-soluble organic solvent not less than 20% by mass.
Regarding claim 14,
Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a resin such as polyolefins ([0034]), the polyolefin resin is dispersed in a solvent to form an emulsion ([0111]), which reads on resin minute particles. Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a surfactant, such as acetylene glycol-based surfactants ([0139-140]). Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of organic solvents such as butanediol ([0121]), and further teaches 1,3-butanediol ([0133]). Kobayashi teaches the solvent makes up 15% to 45% by mass ([0134-0135]), which overlaps the present claim of the water-soluble organic solvent not less than 20% by mass.
Regarding claim 15,
Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a resin such as polyolefins ([0034]), the polyolefin resin is dispersed in a solvent to form an emulsion ([0111]), which reads on resin minute particles. Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a surfactant, such as polyoxyethylene-based surfactants ([0139-140]). Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of organic solvents such as propylene glycol ([0121]). Kobayashi teaches the solvent makes up 15% to 45% by mass ([0134-0135]), which overlaps the present claim of the water-soluble organic solvent not less than 20% by mass.
Regarding claim 16,
Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a resin such as polyolefins ([0034]), the polyolefin resin is dispersed in a solvent to form an emulsion ([0111]), which reads on resin minute particles. Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of a surfactant, such as polyoxyethylene-based surfactants ([0139-140]). Kobayashi teaches the ink composition comprises of organic solvents such as butanediol ([0121]), and further teaches 1,3-butanediol ([0133]). Kobayashi teaches the solvent makes up 15% to 45% by mass ([0134-0135]), which overlaps the present claim of the water-soluble organic solvent not less than 20% by mass.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17,
Kobayashi teaches a printing device (i.e., apparatus) with a printing unit [0167], the printing unit have an inkjet head that is filled with the ink for claim 1. The inkjet head is able to be filled with the ink, which reads on the ink storage. Kobayashi further teaches the printing device print an image onto a surface configuring the head nozzle with the surface of the printing medium ([0167]).
Regarding claims 18-20,
Kobayashi teaches the printing section include a drying section that dries the ink printed on the printing medium ([0020]). Kobayashi teaches the printing unit performs printing on a printing medium ([0018]).
Regarding claims 21-22,
Kobayashi teaches the drying of the ink is used in a dryer at 60˚C, which lies within the present claim of the drying temperature being in a range of 20˚C to 200˚C, and 50˚C to 100˚C ([0167]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended now recite a specific combination of organic solvents and further fails to teach the amount of solvent instantly claimed, i.e. 30-33% by mass. These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, the examiner notes that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Kobayashi teaches organic solvents including the ones recited in the instant claims and further teaches that they can be used in combination. There has been no showing that the specific combination of solvents yields a different or unexpected result as compared to the broader group taught by the reference. Additionally, applicant argues that the reference fails to disclose the range of solvent. However, as discussed above, the reference teaches a range which encompasses the claimed range. Again, there has been no showing that the narrower range claimed would yield any different or unexpected result as compared to the broader range taught by the reference.
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 CHRISTINA ANN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6am - 2pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742