DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendment received on 06/03/2026:
• Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12-23 are currently pending. Claims 3, 5, and 7-11 are canceled. Claims 12-19 are withdrawn for being directed to a non-elected invention(s).
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 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, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamizu et al. (US-20210060993-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Hayamizu”) in view of Miyasa et al. (US-20200040523-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Miyasa”), 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, 4, and 6, 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).
While Hayamizu teaches the set outlined above, Hayamizu fails to explicitly teach the set as comprising a fabric which is a polyester comprising a dye (dispersion dye, regarding claim 6).
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).
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 in the set 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 a polyester cotton as the cotton recording medium in Hayamizu, because 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.
Furthermore, 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 colored with a disperse dye in the set of Hayamizu. 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.
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 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.
Regarding claims 22-23, see Hayamizu at para. 0020, teaching their treatment liquid as containing calcium nitrate.
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 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth below.
First, Applicants argue Hayamizu fails to disclose a fabric which is a polyester containing a dye (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 6).
However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
While the Examiner agrees that Hayamizu fails to disclose the claimed limitation, such a limitation is obvious in view of Miyasa (see claim 1 rejection above). Applicants have provided no arguments with respect to the combination of Hayamizu in view of Miyasa, or why such a combination would not be obvious. In general, polyester cottons are well-known in the art, and are further well-known to be dispersed with disperse dyes in order to tailor the fabric color to the preference of a customer (see Miyasa at para. 0163, 0166, and 0169). Consequently, the claimed limitation is obvious (see claim 1 rejection above).
Next, Applicants argue the prior art has no suggestion of an advantageous effect, such as reduced fabric bleeding, when the claimed processing fluid and ink are in combination with a dyed polyester 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 reduced fabric bleeding is not enough to show nonobviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
Furthermore, Applicants do not provide a single comparative example where a fabric is used that is not a polyester colored with a dye. Applicant’s examples only use a black polyester colored with a black dispersion dye (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 22). Consequently, it is unclear how critical the “polyester comprising a dye” limitation is with respect to the total set.
Lastly, it is noted that the “Examiner’s Suggestion” in the Non-Final Rejection dated 03/23/2026 excluded calcium nitrate from the list of suitable polyvalent metal salts, and further specified the concentration ratio of the polyvalent metal salt. Upon brief glance, this would appear to have overcome Hayamizu given Hayamizu necessitates calcium nitrate in a specific amount (see Hayamizu at para. 0025). However, newly added claims 22 and 23 still allow for the presence of calcium nitrate; accordingly, Hayamizu still reads on claims 22 and 23.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights