DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 6-7, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, contain all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement of Groups I-III, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 04/21/2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 6-7 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendment received on 07/16/2026:
• Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
• All previous prior art grounds of rejection have been withdrawn. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 8 is objected to for a duplicate claim issue.
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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). To correct, the Examiner suggests deleting claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 claims the color material to be a pigment; however, claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, limits the coloring material (via the “consisting of” language) to the grouping of an acid dye, a reactive dye, a direct dye, or combinations thereof. Consequently, the color material cannot further contain a pigment. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting any prior art that meets claim 1 to also meet claim 4. To correct, the Examiner suggests deleting the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are allowed.
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest an aqueous ink jet ink composition comprising: a color material, water, trimethyl glycine, a polyhydric alcohol having a standard boiling point of 270.0 °C or more, and 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-pyrrolidone, wherein a mass ratio of the content of the polyhydric alcohol to that of 1-(2- hydroxyethyl)-2-pyrrolidone is 6.5 or more and 7.0 or less, and wherein the color material consists of an acid dye, a reactive dye, a direct dye, or combinations thereof.
The closest prior art includes Wickramanayke (US-5302197-A), Yamazaki (US-20130281593-A1), and Howald (EP-1277810-A1).
With respect to Wickramanayke, while Wickramanayke teaches most of the claimed limitations (see the Non-Final Rejection dated 04/21/2026), Wickramanayke fails to explicitly teach the color material as consisting of an acid dye, a reactive dye, a direct dye, or combinations thereof. Wickramanayke necessitates their composition to contain a pigment dispersion (see Wickramanayke at col. 2, line 51). Furthermore, Wickramanayke teaches away from using a dye-based ink, stating dye-based inks generally suffer from deficiencies in water fastness and lightfastness (see Wickramanayke at col. 1, lines 35-40). One of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason or suggestion to set the color material to consist of a dye, especially considering Wickramanayke’s explicit teachings away from dye-based inks. Consequently, the claims overcome Wickramanayke.
With respect to Howald, while Howald teaches most of the claimed limitations (see the Non-Final Rejection dated 04/21/2026), Howald fails to explicitly teach the color material as consisting of an acid dye, a reactive dye, a direct dye, or combinations thereof. Similar to Wickramanayke, Howald necessitates their composition to contain a pigment (see Howald at pg. 2, para. 6). There is no teaching or suggestion to replace the pigment of Howald with a dye like that claimed, especially considering the prior art’s teaching away from the use of a strictly dye-based ink (see Wickramanayke at col. 1, lines 35-4). Consequently, the claims overcome Howald.
With respect to the dependent claims, they are found to be allowable for the same reasons given above, and in further consideration of their additional limitations. Further, with respect to claims 4 and 8, such claims would be allowable following overcoming of the 112(b) rejection and the duplicate claim issue above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered. The Examiner agrees with Applicants and has withdrawn the previous prior art grounds of rejection, see above. However, a 112(b) issue over claim 4 and a duplicate claim objection for claim 8 are still present, see above.
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 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 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
