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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendment received on 01/07/2026:
• Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-21 are currently pending. Claims 3, 7, and 8 are canceled. Claims 12-19 are withdrawn for being directed to a non-elected invention(s).
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, 4-6, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamizu et al. (US-20210060993-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Hayamizu”), with evidence from Kagata et al. (US-20140292902-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Kagata”) as to the rejection of claim 21 only.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Hayamizu teaches a set comprising:
• a processing fluid, the processing fluid comprising: an alcohol having an amino group; and a polyvalent metal salt, wherein the processing fluid is applied to fabric, a proportion of the alcohol having an amino group to the processing fluid is from 1.0 to 10.0 percent by mass, wherein the alcohol having an amino group is 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (see Hayamizu at para. 0043, teaching a treatment liquid; also see Hayamizu at para. 0057, teaching the treatment liquid to contain calcium nitrate, which is a polyvalent metal salt; also see Hayamizu at para. 0095-0096, teaching the treatment liquid may contain a pH adjuster, such as 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol; also see Hayamizu at para. 0005 and 0202, teaching the substrate may be a fabric; also see Hayamizu at para. 0098, teaching the amount of pH adjuster in the treatment liquid to range from 0.01 to 5% by mass; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05; also see Hayamizu at para. 0235 and example treatment liquid 12 of Hayamizu at Table 1 at pg. 20, teaching an example treatment liquid containing 1% of AMP, or 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol; as such, Hayamizu reasonably suggests to select a pH adjuster content that falls within the claimed range (e.g., 1%), as exemplified in the example embodiments; also see Hayamizu at para. 0005 and 0202, teaching the substrate may be a fabric); and
• an ink; wherein the ink includes a white ink (see Hayamizu at para. 0118, teaching the pigment in the ink may be a white pigment; a white pigment in an ink necessarily indicates the ink to be a white ink; also see Hayamizu at para. 0173, teaching the ink may be a white ink).
Regarding claim 2, see Hayamizu at para. 0058, teaching the content of calcium nitrate in the treatment liquid to range from 21.5 to 41.7% by mass, which overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claims 5-6, it is noted that the limitations of claims 5 and 6 are limitations of intended use (the liquid “is applied to the fabric, wherein the fabric comprises…”); since the step of applying the fluid to the fabric does not impart any distinct structural characteristics to the claimed processing fluid or set, and since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the limitations, see MPEP § 2111).
Regarding claim 9, see Hayamizu at para. 0005 and 0202, teaching the substrate may be a fabric.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed limitation is notably a property of the composition (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 12, last paragraph through pg. 13, first paragraph, indicating the claimed limitations to be parameters for measuring the chromaticity values of the ink, and thus being a property of the ink). Further, white inks demonstrate the claimed chromaticity values, as evidenced by Kagata at para. 0045. Accordingly, given the white ink of Hayamizu is a “white” ink, it necessarily follows that the white ink of Hayamizu demonstrates the claimed property. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Burden of proof then shifts to Applicants to demonstrate evidence to the contrary. See MPEP § 2112.01
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamizu, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Miyasa et al. (US-20200040523-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Miyasa”).
Regarding claim 10, while Hayamizu teaches the set according to claim 9 outlined above, Hayamizu fails to explicitly teach the fabric as being a polyester or acetate fiber.
However, Miyasa teaches a treatment liquid which may include a polyvalent metal salt and a pH adjuster (see Miyasa at para. 0016 and 0101). Miyasa further teaches the recording medium may be a cloth that is preferably a polyester cloth (see Miyasa at para. 0163).
In this case, polyester cloth is a well-known recording medium for similar treatment liquids in the art (as exemplified by Miyasa at para. 0163) and thus the use of a polyester fabric 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 a polyester cotton as the cotton recording medium in Hayamizu, as 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. Moreover, 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.
Regarding claim 11, while modified Hayamizu teaches the set according to claim 10 outlined above, modified Hayamizu fails to explicitly teach the polyester or acetate fiber as being colored with a dispersion dye.
However, Miyasa teaches a treatment liquid which may include a polyvalent metal salt and a pH adjuster (see Miyasa at para. 0016 and 0101). Miyasa further teaches the recording medium may be a cloth that is preferably a polyester cloth (see Miyasa at para. 0163). Moreover, Miyasa teaches the cloth may be colored in advance with a disperse dye, and since the substrate is colored in advance, a printed material in accordance with the preference of a customer may be provided (see Miyasa at para. 0166 and 0169).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to color the polyester or acetate fiber of modified Hayamizu with a disperse dye. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a printed material in accordance with the preference of a customer (see Miyasa at para. 0166 and 0169). For example, a customer may aesthetically prefer a blue-colored fabric or a green-colored fabric.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamizu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoai (US-20160312061-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Aoai”).
Regarding claim 20, Hayamizu teaches the processing fluid according to claim 1 outlined above, wherein the processing fluid further comprises glycerin (see Treatment Liquid example No. 6 of Hayamizu at Table 1 at pg. 20, which is an example treatment liquid containing 4 wt% of glycerol; thus, Hayamizu reasonably suggests the use of glycerol in their treatment liquid, as exemplified in their example embodiments; glycerol is another term for glycerin).
While Hayamizu teaches the processing fluid above, Hayamizu fails to explicitly teach the alcohol having an amino group as comprising 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol.
However, Aoai teaches a processing fluid containing a flocculant, which can include a multivalent metal salt, a water-soluble organic solvent, a polymer particle, and water (see Aoai at para. 0033 and 0039). Aoai further teaches the processing fluid may include a pH regulator, such as an alcohol amine like diethanolamine, triethanolamine, and 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol (see Aoai at para. 0034 and 0102-0104).
Hayamizu teaches their pH adjuster may include alkanolamines, such as diethanolamine and triethanolamine (see Hayamizu at para. 0096).
In this case, 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol is a well-known alkanolamine suitable for use as a pH adjuster in a treatment liquid (as exemplified by Aoai at para. 0034 and 0102-0104), and thus its use as the pH adjuster in the treatment liquid of Hayamizu 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 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol as the alkanolamine pH adjuster in the treatment liquid of Hayamizu, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth below.
First, Applicants argue Hayamizu teaches a white pigment and not a white ink (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 6), and that thus, one of ordinary skill would not have arrived at a white ink from the white pigment of Hayamizu (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 8).
However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
Hayamizu teaches their ink may contain a white pigment, such as titanium oxide (see Hayamizu at para. 0118). The pigments used in an ink composition generally dictate the color of the ink. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize an ink containing a cyan pigment to be a cyan-colored ink, an ink containing a magenta pigment to be a magenta-colored ink, and an ink containing a white pigment to be a white-colored ink. Furthermore, beyond the teaching regarding the pigment, Hayamizu explicitly teaches their ink may be a white ink (see Hayamizu at para. 0173). Consequently, Hayamizu teaches the claimed set.
Next, Applicants argue their present set as producing excellent and robust images that can be printed on fabric (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 7).
However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2145. A mere conclusion that Applicant’s set produces excellent and robust images is not enough to show nonobviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
Examiner’s Suggestion
In the interest of expedited prosecution, the Examiner proposes a potential amendment to overcome the current grounds of rejection. It is noted that this amendment is suggested following a brief, cursory glance of the specification and the prior art, and there is no guarantee such amendment won’t read on the current references upon a more detailed review. Moreover, further search and consideration would be required if such amendment is added (i.e., allowability is NOT guaranteed following the incorporation of such amendment). Lastly, Applicants may use all or none of such suggestion – it is merely intended as a helpful starting point for potential future amendments, if desired. If Applicants wish to clarify or discuss the below suggested amendment further, the Examiner invites Applicants to telephone for an interview.
Amendment Suggestion 1 (support found at pg. 6, para. 1 and 5 of Applicant’s specification):
“…a proportion of the alcohol having an amino group to the processing fluid is from
1.0 to 10.0 percent by mass;
the polyvalent metal salt is selected from the group consisting of a titanium
compound, a chromium compound, a copper compound, a cobalt compound, a strontium compound, a barium compound, an iron compound, an aluminum compound, a magnesium compound, a zinc compound, a nickel compound, calcium carbonate, calcium chlorinate, calcium acetate, calcium sulfate, and calcium silicate;
wherein a proportion of the polyvalent metal salt to the processing fluid is from 5.0 to 30.0 percent by mass; and
an ink;
wherein the ink includes white ink.
(Canceled)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kobashi et al. (US-20230303883-A1) teach a white ink may be applied to a fabric in an amount of 5 to 50 mg/cm2 in order to enhance white concealing and achieve soft texture (see Kobashi at para. 0246).
Urano et al. (US-20200276849-A1) teach a base layer may be formed on a fabric using a white ink in order to conceal the color of the substrate and to form an image on top of the white layer (see Urano at para. 0132).
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.
/J.E.B./
Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731