DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 01/28/2026. Applicant filed a response on 04/24/2026, and amended claim 1.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 13 are rejected.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from consideration.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, CN 106087479A (Jin) in view of Ushiku et al, JP 2011084680A (Ushiku) and Taniguchi, JP 2004-162247A (Taniguchi), taken in view of evidence by PubChem, “1,3-Butanediol” (PubChem).
The machine translation of Jin provided with the IDS filed 06/23/2022, and the machine translation of Taniguchi provided with the IDS filed 12/22/2021, are referenced below. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Ushiku with the PTO-892 mailed 01/28/2026. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translations.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Jin teaches a silk reactive printing method comprising the steps of: (1) Pretreatment; (2) Maintenance fluid treatment; (3) Sizing; (4) Drying; (5) Production Document; (6) Digital inkjet printing; (7) Steaming and drying; (8) Washing, and (9) Stretch drying (Jin; page 2, “1.”).
The sizing step (3) slurry is composed of the following by weight percent:
3% sodium alginate (i.e., a thickening agent);
1% trehalose (i.e., a sugar with a molecular weight of 400 or less, falling within the claimed mass% ranges of 0.1-30% of claim 1, and 1.0-20% of claim 3, with respect to an amount of the treatment composition);
2-3% sodium bicarbonate (i.e., an alkaline agent),
1% glycerin,
1% urea (i.e., 15% by mass or less, with respect to an amount of the treatment composition, of the urea of claim 5), and
water (see Jin; pages 2-3, “3.”).
See also Jin: page 5, “The step 3 slurry;” and the exemplified “step 3 slurry” of Examples 1-5 on pages 6-11.
Jin teaches a “silk reactive printing method” (emphasis added) (Jin; Abstract and page 2, “1.”).
Jim does not explicitly teach:
0.1-30% by mass with respect to an amount of the treatment composition of a glycol solvent with a molecular weight of 100 or less (claim 1), or 1.0-20% by mass with respect to an amount of the treatment composition of a glycol solvent with a molecular weight of 100 or less (claim 2), the glycol solvent including 1,3-butanediol; or
a reduction inhibitor, wherein a content of the reduction inhibitor is 0.5% by mass to 10% by mass, with respect to an amount of the treatment solution composition, as presently claimed (claim 1).
With respect to difference i), Ushiku teaches an ink set for textile printing and an ink jet textile printing method that suppresses bleeding, even on a fabric that has not been pretreated, and provides an excellent texture and high color density (Ushiku; page 2, lines 28-30). The methods use a recording ink and a functional ink (Ushiku; page 3, lines 20-22 and page 5, line 54). Fabrics to be treated include silk (Ushiku; page 7, lines 18-20).
The functional ink contains a hydrotropic agent applied from an inkjet head in order to obtain sufficient color density and development of the recorded image, particularly when a reactive dye is used, followed by steam treatment (Ushiku; page 5, lines 54-58). Hydrotropic agents include urea (Ushiku; page 5, lines 58-59).
Further, when a reactive dye is used in the recording ink, an alkali is preferably used in the functional ink. The inorganic base promotes the binding reaction of the reactive dye to fibers such as silk, thereby improving the dyeing rate and the color density, as well as suppressing bleeding (Ushiku; page 6, lines 3439). Preferred inorganic bases include sodium bicarbonate, as well as potassium carbonate and potassium bicarbonate (Ushiku; page 6, lines 45-48).
The functional ink may also comprise a water-soluble solvent. A water-soluble solvent is preferably used for the purpose of suppressing clogging and decap due to drying on the head of the nozzle, and include glycerin (Ushiku; page 6, lines 13-16). An additional water-soluble solvent may be used for the purpose of adjusting the surface tension and viscosity of the ink, wherein additional solvents include butylene glycol (Ushiku; page 6, lines 13-22). As is evidenced by PubChem, butylene glycol is a synonym for 1,3-butanediol (PubChem; page 2, “Synonyms” 1-3 and “Depositor-Supplied Synonyms 1 and 5).
The addition amount of the water-soluble organic solvents is preferably in the range of 5% by mass to 40% by mass in the functional ink (Ushiku; page 6, lines 31-32).
The functional ink comprises water (Ushiku; page 9, lines 22-26).
Ushiku is analogous art as it teaches treatment solutions for ink jet textile printing compositing a glycol solvent with a molecular weight of 100 or less, the glycol solvent including 1,3-butanediol, water, an alkaline agent, and urea.
In light of the motivation by Ushiku to add a water-soluble solvent to aqueous treatment compositions for silk fabrics comprising hydrotropic agents such as urea, solvents such as glycerin, and alkaline agents such as sodium bicarbonate, and wherein the fabrics are ink jet printed with reactive dyes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further add a water-soluble solvent to the sizing compositions of Jin in order to adjust the surface tension and viscosity of the sizing composition.
Given that Ushiku discloses water-soluble solvents that overlap the presently claimed glycol solvents with a molecular weight of 100 or less, including 1,3-butanediol, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 1,3-butanediol in the compositions of Jin, which is both disclosed by Ushiku and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the 1,3-butanediol to the compositions of Jin in an amount such that the total amount of organic solvents is 5% by mass to 40% by mass of the sizing composition, in order to obtain a composition with a suitable viscosity and surface tension.
5% by mass to 40% by mass of the composition overlaps in scope with the claimed content of glycol solvent of 0.1% by mass to 30% by mass (claim 1), and 1.0% by mass to 20% by mass (claim 2), with respect to an amount of the treatment solution composition.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to difference ii), Taniguchi teaches an inkjet printing method including a step a discharging an aqueous inkjet ink comprising a reactive dye onto fabric previously treated with a pretreatment agent. A reduction inhibitor is included in at least one of the pretreatment agent or the inkjet printing ink (Taniguchi; [0008]). Fabrics to be printed include silk (Taniguchi; [0049]).
The aqueous pretreatment agent includes at least a sizing agent, an alkaline agent and a hydrotrope. It may also contain a reduction inhibitor (Taniguchi; [0037]). Sizing agents include, e.g., sodium alginate (Taniguchi; [0038]). Sodium bicarbonate is the preferred alkali agent (Taniguchi; [0039]). Urea is a preferred hydrotropy agent (Taniguchi; [0040]). Water is contained in the pretreatment agent (Taniguchi; [0041]).
The pretreatment agent contains a reduction inhibitor, which is effective in improving the reproducibility of printing density and hue. Placing an anti-reducing agent in the pretreatment agent in advance makes it possible to prevent spots that occur when the inkjet textile printing ink is steamed on the fabric and dyed. In particular, when the textile printing ink is composed of a plurality of dyes, the hue may change in a low density region, but such a problem can be prevented by the reduction inhibitor (Taniguchi; [0042]).
Moreover, the fabric processed with the pretreatment agent containing the reduction inhibitor is excellent in storage stability. Color reproducibility hardly deteriorates even after being placed under high temperature and high humidity for a long time. The amount of the reduction inhibitor in the pretreatment agent is preferably 15% by weight or less, and more preferably 1 to 8% by weight with respect to the pretreatment agent solution. When the content of the reduction inhibitor exceeds 15% by weight, the anti-reducing agent may precipitate from the pretreated cloth (Taniguchi; [0042]).
The preferred range of 1 to 8% by weight of reduction inhibitor, with respect to the pretreatment agent solution of Taniguchi, falls within the claimed range of 0.5% by mass to 10% by mass of reduction inhibitor, with respect to an amount of the treatment solution composition.
Taniguchi is analogous art as it teaches pretreatment solutions for ink jet textile printing comprising a reduction inhibitor, an alkaline agent, urea and water.
In light of the motivation provided by Taniguchi to add a reduction inhibitor to aqueous sizing pretreatment compositions for silk fabrics, the pretreatment compositions comprising sizing agents such as sodium alginate, hydrotropic agents such as urea, and alkaline agents such as sodium bicarbonate, and wherein the fabrics are ink jet printed with reactive dyes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further add a reduction inhibitor in the preferred amount of 1 to 8% by weight, with respect to the pretreatment agent solution, to the sizing compositions of Jin in view of Ushiku, in order to improve the reproducibility of printing density and hue, prevent spotting that occurs when the ink is steamed on the fabric, prevent a change in hue of low density printed areas, and improve storage stability even after being placed under high temperature and high humidity for a long time, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Jin in view of Ushiku and Taniguchi are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the treatment compositions comprise 1,3-butanediol. As is evidenced at ¶ [0016] and [0017] of the instant specification, 1,3-butanediol has a boiling point of 230oC or less as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Jin in view of Ushiku and Taniguchi are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The sizing step 3 slurries contain 3% sodium alginate as a thickener (Jin; page 2, “3.” and page 4, “Background technique,” 2nd paragraph).
Jin does not explicitly teach wherein a content of the thickening agent is 2% by mass or less with respect to an amount of the treatment solution composition.
Taniguchi teaches that sodium alginate may be used as a sizing agent, wherein the sizing agent is effective for ink fixing and prevention of bleeding. The content of the sizing agent is preferably 0.5 to 20% by weight , based on the total solids content of the pretreatment agent. If the content is less than 0.5% by weight, the ink may not be sufficiently fixed and bleeding may occur. If the content exceeds 20% by weight, the pretreatment agent does not spread throughout the entire fabric (Taniguchi; [0038]).
While Jin in view of Ushiku and Taniguchi do not explicitly disclose a mass % of thickener, with respect to the amount of treatment solution composition as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the mass% of sodium alginate (thickener/sizing agent) in the compositions of Jin in view of Ushiku and Taniguchi, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain a pretreatment sizing composition which sufficiently fixes the ink, prevents bleeding, and ensures that the pretreatment agent spreads throughout the entire fabric.
Regarding claims 7-8, Jin in view of Ushiku and Taniguchi are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Jin teaches pretreating silk (i.e., a textile) with the step (3) slurry, followed by reactive ink jet printing (Jin: Abstract; page 2, claims 1 and 3).
Jin does not explicitly teach an ink “set” comprising a treatment solution and an ink jet ink composition comprising a reactive dye as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Ushiku teaches an ink set for textile printing and an ink jet textile printing method that suppresses bleeding, even on a fabric that has not been pretreated, and provides an excellent texture and high color density (Ushiku; page 2, lines 28-30). The sets comprise a recording ink and a functional ink, wherein the recording ink contains a reactive dye (Ushiku; page 2, lines 35-38 and 47-48). Fabrics to be treated include silk (Ushiku; page 7, lines 18-20).
Taniguchi teaches ink sets comprising various color inks used to perform ink jet printing on pretreated fabrics (Taniguchi; [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the various treatment compositions of Jin in a set comprising a treatment solution and reactive dye-containing ink jet ink, because Ushiku and Taniguchi teach such sets are known in the art, and those skilled in the art would have recognized the convenience for the user of including the compositions, which are to be used together in a textile treating and printing process, in an ink set, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Jin in view of Ushiku and Taniguchi are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Jin teaches that the “step 3 slurry” comprises 2% to 3% by weight of the alkaline agent sodium bicarbonate (Jin; page 5, “The step 3 slurry”).
Jin does not explicitly teach wherein a content of the alkaline agent is 4 to 10 % by mass, with respect to a total amount of the treatment solution composition as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Ushiku is relied upon above as teaching when a reactive dye is used in the recording ink, an alkali is preferably used in the functional ink. The inorganic base promotes the binding reaction of the reactive dye to fibers such as silk, thereby improving the dyeing rate and the color density, as well as suppressing bleeding (Ushiku; page 6, lines 3439). Preferred inorganic bases include sodium bicarbonate, as well as potassium carbonate and potassium bicarbonate (Ushiku; page 6, lines 45-48). Ushiku exemplifies a functional ink comprising 6.0 parts potassium carbonate and 2 parts potassium bicarbonate, i.e., 8 parts by weight alkaline agent with respect to the total amount of functional ink (Ushiku; page 9, lines 22-25).
With respect to the difference, Taniguchi teaches the alkaline agent is effective for improving the fixing reaction speed of the inkjet reactive dye ink. A particularly preferred alkali agent is sodium bicarbonate. The content of the alkali agent is preferably 0.5 to 10% by weight, and more preferably 2 to 6% by weight, in terms of solid content with respect to the total weight of the pretreatment agent. If the amount is less than 0.5% by weight, the ink fixing reaction rate may become slow and the concentration may be insufficient. If the amount exceeds 10% by weight, animal fibers such as silk may be yellowed (Taniguchi; [0039]).
In light of the motivation provided by Ushiku and Taniguchi to adjust the amount of inorganic base/alkali agent in a treatment solution for textiles printed with reactive dyes, it would have been obvious vary the amount of inorganic base (i.e., sodium bicarbonate), including over the presently claimed such as 8% by mass with respect to a total amount of the composition as exemplified by Ushiku, in order to promote the binding reaction/fixing of the reactive dye to the silk fibers, improve the dyeing rate and color density, suppress bleeding, and prevent yellowing of the silk fibers.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
1) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over Luo et al, CN 107837214A (Luo) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-6 has been withdrawn.
Specifically, Luo does not disclose or suggest treatment compositions comprising 0.5 to 10% by mass, with respect to the treatment solution composition, of a reduction inhibitor as presently claimed.
2) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Wang, US 2012/0070584 A1 (Wang), taken in view of evidence by PubChem, “1,3-Butanediol,” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-5 and 13 has been withdrawn.
Specifically, Wang, alone or taken in view of evidence of PubChem, does not disclose or suggest compositions comprising 0.5 to 10% by mass, with respect to the composition, of a reduction inhibitor as presently claimed.
3) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Jin, CN 106087479A (Jin) in view of Ushiku et al, JP 2011084680A (Ushiku), taken in view of evidence by PubChem, “1,3-Butanediol” (PubChem), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8 and 13 has been withdrawn.
Specifically, Jin in view of Ushiku taken in view of evidence of PubChem, do not disclose or suggest compositions comprising 0.5 to 10% by mass, with respect to the composition, of a reduction inhibitor as presently claimed.
However, upon further consideration and search due to Applicant’s claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made over Jin, CN 106087479A (Jin) in view of Ushiku et al, JP 2011084680A (Ushiku) and Taniguchi, JP 2004-162247A (Taniguchi), taken in view of evidence by PubChem, “1,3-Butanediol” (PubChem).
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 CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights