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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki et al (US 2018/0273789).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuzaki ‘789 teaches an ink consisting essentially of:
A water-insoluble coloring agent ([0094])
A dispersing agent ([0083])
An oxidized polyethylene wax ([0068])
A compound represented by formula (1) such as Noigen-149D (HLB: 11.5, R1 =17, m1=8, n1=0) or Emanon 1112 (HLB: 13.7, R1 =11, m1=12, n1=0) ([0088]) or a compound which reads on formula (2) such as Emanon-3299RV (HLB: 19.2, R2=17, R3=17, m2=250, n2=0) ([0143])
Water ([0090])
A glycol ether ([0117])
A C3 alkanediol such as propanediol ([0117])
And a pH adjusting agent ([0157])
It is noted that the texanol is not mandatorily present.
Matsuzaki ‘789 fails to specifically exemplify the recited ink. However, it discloses each of the components of the ink, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in an ink. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the inks suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the ink suggested by Matsuzaki ‘789, including the claimed ink. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Matsuzaki ‘789 to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using a known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuzaki ‘789 teaches an inkjet printing method of performing printing by causing an inkjet printer to discharge a droplet of the ink according to claim 1 and attaching the droplet to a printing medium ([0194]).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuzaki ‘789 teaches that the recording medium is nonabsorbent or is poorly absorbent to ink ([0186]).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuzaki ‘789 teaches a printing medium to which the ink according to claim 1 is attached ([0194]).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuzaki ‘789 teaches that the recording medium is nonabsorbant or is poorly absorbent to ink ([0186]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights