DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
The amendments filed 12/23/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-8 and 13 are rejected.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al, CN 107837214A (Luo).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Luo. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-2, Luo discloses a moisturizing and brightening mask in Embodiment 2 comprising the following parts by weight of each component:
100 parts of water; 10 parts of hot spring water; 6 parts of 1,3-butanediol; 5 parts of seaweed extract; PCA sodium 1 part; trehalose 0.2 part; 1,2-hexanediol 0.3 part; betaine 1 part; dipotassium glycyrrhizin 0.2 part; hydroxyethyl cellulose 0.1 part; polyglutamic acid 0.05 part; panthenol 0.2 parts; sodium lactate 0.5 parts; hydroxyethyl urea 0.5 parts; niacin amide 0.2 parts; allantoin 0.2 parts; sodium chloride 0.1 parts; sodium hyaluronate 0.05 parts; glycerin 3 parts; 1,2-pentanediol 2 parts; 0.08 parts of xanthan gum; 0.3 parts of phenoxyethanol; 0.6 parts of Ou Huoxue extract; 1 part of 1,3-propanediol; 0.03 part of ethylhexyl glycerol; 0.05 part of fructose; 0.1 part of urea; 0.03 part of citric acid; 0.003 parts of sodium hydroxide; 0.05 parts of maltose; 0.1 part of tranexamic acid; 0.05 part of glucose; 0.06 part of carnosine; 0.2 part of octanoylhydroxamic acid; and 0.01 part of hydroxyphenylpropionamide benzoic acid. (i.e., a treatment solution composition) (Luo; page 4, lines 8-17).
The composition contains a total of 133.263 parts.
The composition contains 6 parts of 1,3-butanediol + 3 parts glycerin + 1 part of 1,3-propanediol = 10 parts a glycol solvent with a MW of 100 or less and comprising 1,3-butanediol (claim 1). Therefore, the composition comprises 10/133.263*100 = 7.50% by mass glycol solvent with molecular weight of 100 or less, with respect to an amount of the composition, wherein the glycol solvent comprises 1,3-butanediol as claimed. 7.50% by mass glycol solvent falls within the claimed ranges of 0.1% to 30% by mass (claim 1), and 1.0% to 20.0% (claim 2), with respect to an amount of the treatment solution composition.
The composition contains 0.2 parts trehalose + 0.05 part of fructose + 0.05 parts of maltose + 0.05 part of glucose = 0.35 parts sugar with a molecular weight of 400 or less (claim 1). Therefore, the composition comprises 0.35/133.263*100 = 0.26% by mass sugar with a molecular weight of 400 or less, with respect to an amount of the composition. 0.26% by mass sugar falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 30% by mass (claim 1), with respect to an amount of the treatment solution composition.
The composition contains water and sodium hydroxide (i.e., an alkaline agent) (claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Luo is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the treatment composition comprises 1,3-butanediol and 1,3-propanediol. Applicant’s specification at [0016] and [0017] discloses that 1,3-butanediol and 1,3-propanediol meet the claimed limitation wherein the boiling point of the glycol solvent is 230oC or less.
Regarding claim 5, Luo is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The composition of Embodiment 2 contains: 0.5 parts hydroxyethyl urea + 0.08 parts of xanthan gum = 0.58 parts thickening agent. Therefore, the composition comprises 0.58/133.263*100 = 0.44% by mass thickening agent, with respect to an amount of the composition. 0.44% by mass thickening agent falls within the claimed range of 2.0% by mass or less thickening agent, with respect to an amount of the treatment solution composition.
Regarding claim 6, Luo is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The composition of Embodiment 2 contains: 0.1 parts hydroxyethyl cellulose + 0.1 part of urea = 0.6 parts ureas. Therefore, the composition comprises 0.6/133.263*100 = 0.45% by mass ureas, with respect to an amount of the composition. 0.45% by mass ureas falls within the claimed range of 15% by mass or less ureas, with respect to an amount of the treatment solution composition.
See Examples 1 and 3 of Luo for similar treatment solution compositions (Luo; page 3, lines 27-38 and page 4, lines 22-32).
While there is no disclosure that the treatment compositions of Luo are “for ink jet textile printing” as presently claimed, Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. for ink jet textile printing, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art, and further that the prior art structure which is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
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 1-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, US 2012/0070584 A1 (Wang), taken in view of evidence by PubChem, “1,3-Butanediol.”
Regarding claims 1-5, Wang teaches a highlighting ink formulation comprising a solvent system, a colorant, and an anti-smear agent (Wang; [0006]). In Example 17, Wang teaches an ink comprising deionized water, 15 wt.% sucrose (a sugar with a molecular weight of 400 or less), 9 wt.% propylene glycol (a glycol solvent with a molecular weight of 100 or less), triethanolamine (an alkaline agent), and 7 wt.% urea (Wang; [0080]).
As is evidenced in the instant specification at ¶ [0016] and [0017], propylene glycol is a preferred glycol solvent having a boiling point of 230oC or less (claim 4).
9 wt.% propylene glycol falls within the claimed glycol solvent content ranges of 0.1 to 30% by mass (claim 1), and 1.0 to 20% by mass (claim 2), with respect to an amount of the treatment solution.
15 wt.% sucrose falls within the claimed sugar content ranges of 0.1 to 30% by mass (claim 1), and 1.0 to 20% by mass (claim 3), with respect to an amount of the treatment solution.
7 wt.% urea falls within the claimed urea content range of 15% by mass or less (claim 5), with respect to an amount of the treatment solution.
Wang teaches that in addition to water, a cosolvent may be used in an amount of about 1-40 wt%, most preferably about 5-15wt%, based on the total weight of the ink (Wang; [0022] and [0024]). The preferred range of 5-15wt% falls completely within the claimed glycol solvent range of 0.1 to 30% by mass (claim 1), and 1.0 to 20% by mass (claim 2), with respect to an amount of the treatment solution.
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).
Wang further teaches the equivalence between propylene glycol, butylene glycols, and combination thereof as solvents in the inks (Wang; [0022]). 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).
Given that Wang discloses co-solvents that overlap the presently claimed glycol solvent, including 1,3-butanediol, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the 1,3-butanediol, which is both disclosed by Wang and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, in light of the disclosure of Wang of the equivalence and interchangeability of using propylene glycol, 1,3-butanediol, and combinations thereof as co-solvents in the inks, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 1,3-butanediol, such as by partial substitution of the exemplified propylene glycol co-solvent, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
While there is no disclosure that the ink of Wang is a “treatment solution for ink jet textile printing” as presently claimed, Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. treatment solution for ink jet textile printing, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art, and further that the prior art structure which is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claim 13, Wang is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wang teaches that the pH adjuster, such as Triethanol amine 9 (i.e., an alkaline agent), may be used in an amount of about 0.01-20 wt%, most preferably 5-7 wt% based on the total amount of the ink (Wang; [0035]). In Examples 5 and 6, Wang exemplifies inks comprising 10 wt% sodium acetate (i.e., an alkaline agent), and in Example 18 Wang exemplifies an ink comprising 8 wt% sodium acetate and 1 wt% triethanolamine (i.e., 9 wt% alkaline agent) (Wang; [0056], [0058] and [0081]). 9 wt% and 10 wt% fall within the claimed alkaline agent range of 4 to 10% by mass, with respect to an amount of the treatment solution.
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), taken in view of evidence by PubChem, “1,3-Butanediol” (PubChem).
The machine translation of Jin provided in the IDS filed 06/23/2022 is referenced below. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Ushiku. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
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 as presently 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 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 be 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).
Regarding claim 4, Jin in view of Ushiku 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 are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The 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.
Ushiku teaches that a pretreatment agent comprising a water-soluble polymer such as sodium alginate is applied to a fabric prior to ink jet printing in order to provide an ink retaining component and prevent bleeding (Ushiku; page 2, lines 1-5).
While Jin in view of Ushiku do not explicitly disclose a mass % of thickener 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 in the compositions of Jin in view of Ushiku, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain a treatment composition which prevents bleeding, retains the printed ink, and results in a treatment composition with a suitable viscosity.
Regarding claims 7-8, Jin in view of Ushiku 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).
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 teaches 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 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).
In light of the motivation provided by Ushiku to use an inorganic base in a treatment solution for textiles printed with reactive dyes, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of inorganic base (i.e., sodium bicarbonate), such as to an amount of 8% by mass with respect to a total amount of the composition as exemplified by Ushiku, in order to promote the binding reaction of the reactive dye to the silk fibers, improve the dyeing rate and color density, and suppressing bleeding. 8% by mass falls within the claimed alkaline agent range of 4 to 10% by mass with respect to a total amount of the treatment solution composition.
“[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
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 5, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being anticipated by Wang (US 2012/0070584), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Specifically, Wang does not anticipate compositions comprising 1,3-butanediol as presently claimed. However, upon further consideration of Wang with respect to the amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wang taken in view of evidence by PubChem. Further, upon updating the searches, a new reference, Luo, came to the attention of the examiner, a new grounds of rejection is also made under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Luo, as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 5, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jin (CN 106087479) in view of Sunami (JPH11-302986), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Specifically, Jin and Sunami, alone or in combination, do not teach compositions comprising 1,3-butanediol as presently claimed.
Applicant primarily argues:
“More particularly, upon review of Wang and Jin, Applicant notes that each of these references are silent with respect to the use of 1,3-butanediol. Further, the teachings of Sunami do not cure the deficiencies of Wang and Jin.”
Remarks, p. 5
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that Wang teaches using butylene glycol (i.e., 1,3-butanediol) as a solvent in the inks (Wang; [0022]). See pages 8-10 set forth above.
Further, regarding Jin, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Jin does not expressly teach the use of 1,3-butanediol. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), which admits that Jin does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Ushiku is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Jin. See pages 11-15 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rejections over these references would be cumulative to the above rejections.
Ikoshi et al, US 2010/0168322 A1, teaches an inkjet recording liquid comprising water; a water-soluble compound such as fructose, glucose, galactose, trehalose and lactose in an amount of 1-15% by weight; a water-soluble solvent such as 1,3-butanediol in an amount of 30 weight% or less; and an alkaline pH adjuster (Ikoshi; [0012], [0022-0024], [0082], [0084], [0210]).
Tang et al, CN 110664647A, discloses a skin care composition comprising 20-50% water, 5-10% glycerol, 3-5% butanediol, 1-5% fructose, 1-5% urea, 1-5% sodium hydroxide, 1-5% maltose, 1-5% trehalose and 1-5% glucose (see attached machine English translation, page 2, lines 29-40).
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