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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed 5/5/2026 are entered and have
been fully considered. Applicant has amended claims 4 and 6 to overcome the 112b rejection therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 19-20, 22-23, 25-28, 33-34, 36-38, 41, and 43 are 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. Claims 19, 33, and 37 have improper Markush groupings, where there is a closed set of alternatives, there should be the word “and” before the last selection; specifically in the last line of these claims the list of the selections for the sensitizers should have “and” before “a nitrogen compound” to indicate a closed set.
A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.
Claims 20, 22-23, 25-28, 34, 36, 38, 41, and 43 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 19, 33, and 37.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-2, 4-7, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunami et al, JP2003201331A in view of Nakano et al, US20120225968.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-7, 14 and 17, Matsunami teaches a composition comprising an oligomer made from a self-emulsifying polyisocyanate derivative ¶¶[0001, 0008], polymerization initiators, and emulsifiers (surfactants) ¶¶[0001, 0008, 0011, 0044], which reads on claims 14 and 17 option (1). The polyisocyanate derivative is made from reacting a polyisocyanate (a1) selected from trimers thereof ¶[0013] (reads on claim 5), a polyalkylene glycol derivative (a2) selected from those of formula (1) H-(O-X)n-O-Y, see page 2 of original document, where Y is (meth)acryloyl, or allyl, or acyl, and n=1 or more ¶¶[0018-0021], and a hydroxyl group-containing (meth)acrylate (a3) that can be selected as pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, which has three polymerizable unsaturated groups. The compounds (a1), (a2), and (a3) of Matsunami satisfy the compounds of (A), (C’), and (B’), respectively, of claims 1-2, and 14-15.
Matsunami does not explicitly say the composition is water-based, but teaches that the polyisocyanate derivative is self-emulsifying and forms stable emulsions, ¶[0001], which means it is emulsified in water, and explains the invention is to address the demand for aqueous systems such as water dispersible types ¶[0004]. Matsunami disperses the polyisocyanate derivative in water, forming an emulsion, ¶[0058], satisfying claim 7, option (1). The polyisocyanate derivative is curable by active energy ray, or UV light ¶¶[0008, 0042], is useful as an ink ¶[0049], and can further be mixed with pigments ¶[0044].
Matsunami teaches that the isocyanate groups in the polyisocyanate compound (a1) form urethane bonds with the hydroxyl groups of the polyalkylene glycol derivative (a2) and the hydroxyl groups of the hydroxyl group-containing (meth)acrylate (a3), respectively ¶[0025], which reads on claim 4.
The polyalkylene glycol (a2) is selected from polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate ¶[0019], polyethylene glycol monoallyl ether ¶[0020], or polyethylene glycol monolaurate ¶[0021], satisfying claim 6.
In the examples, Matsunami produces emulsion compositions with about 35 wt.% of the polyisocyanate derivative (oligomer), ¶¶[0059, 0064], and also teaches in example 2 that the amount of polyisocyanate derivative (oligomer) relative to the total solids is about 84.95 wt.%, which reads on the claimed 30-90% oligomer content relative to the total solids in the composition. This is calculated from the 35 parts resin (oligomer) content plus the 1.2 parts initiator plus 5 parts triacrylate monomer, ¶[0064] and 35/41.2 = 84.95%.
Matsunami does not teach emulsions with the polyisocyanate derivative (oligomer) within the claimed 3-20 mass%.
Nakano discloses a UV curable water-based ink for ink jet printing comprising a UV curable urethane (meth)acrylate, initiator, acrylate monomers, and pigment, see abstract and ¶¶[0041, 0142]. Nakano further discloses that content of the urethane (meth)acrylate is preferably 5 to 50% by mass in relation to the total amount of the ink composition; this enables the formation of a coating film and obtains properties such as satisfactory film strength and satisfactory adhesion, when used as the ink composition, ¶[0111]. This recommended amount of oligomer overlaps with both the claimed amount and the amount taught in Matsunami.
Matsunami and Nakano are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of UV curable water-based compositions comprising urethane (meth)acrylate oligomers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Matsunami but produce an emulsion with an oligomer amount of preferably 5-50 mass% relative to the total amount of the composition with the motivation of producing an emulsion that has satisfactory film strength and adhesion when used as an ink because this amount of oligomer enables film formation, film strength, and adhesion as disclosed by Nakano.
Regarding claim 11, Matsunami further teaches adding polymerization initiators, and emulsifiers (which are a type of surfactant) ¶¶[0011, 0044]. Matsunami also lists the initiators in ¶[0033] which includes thioxanthone, a hydrophobic initiator that is also a preferred initiator by applicant, ¶[0159] of the instant specification, and applicant further notes that thioxanthone is fat soluble, which leads this type of initiator to be contained (encompassed) inside the particles of the oligomer, ¶¶[0160, 0163] of the instant specification. Although Matsunami does not explicitly teach this limitation, it is inherent to the composition because Matsunami emulsifies the initiator with the oligomer, and it is the same hydrophobic fat-soluble initiators and the same urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer that applicant uses in the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 13, Matsunami teaches the composition is applied to an object and then cured by irradiating with active energy rays (UV rays) ¶¶[0046-0047].
Claims 19-20, 22-23, 25-28, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al, US20120225968 in view of Wood et al, US20040170779.
Regarding claim 19, Nakano teaches a UV curable water-based printing ink comprising a UV curable urethane (meth)acrylate and pigment, ¶[0041]. Nakano further teaches the ink composition comprises a polymerization initiator ¶¶[0014, 0168] and a fluorescent brightening agent known as a sensitizer ¶¶[0178-0179]. The initiator is hydrophobic, ¶¶[0027, 0169], and includes at least a thioxanthone initiator, ¶[0028]. The brightening agent and initiator are mixed together and emulsified with the urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer, ¶¶[0135, 0196], and the amphiphilic urethane (meth)acrylate forms micelles in the water with the hydrophobic portion directed toward the core and the hydrophilic portion directed to the water phase; the micelles include the polymerization initiator within it, ¶¶[0199-0201], also see figures 1 and 2, which satisfies the claimed initiator being contained within a particle of the oligomer.
Among the brightening agents (sensitizers), Nakano lists thiophene benzoxazolyl derivatives ¶[0181] which reads on the sulfur compound of claim 19’s sensitizers. Nakano also exemplifies commercial brightener HOSTALUX KCB (1,4-bis(2-benzoxazolyl)naphthalene) ¶¶[0182, 0254] which also reads on the claimed nitrogen containing sensitizers. Additionally, thioxanthone is listed in the claimed sensitizers, which Nakano teaches is used as an initiator, and applicant lists thioxanthone as both initiator and a sensitizer in ¶¶[0159, 0184] of the instant specification; therefore Nakano including a thioxanthone initiator also reads on the thioxanthone sensitizer of the claim.
Nakano does not teach using a hydroxylamine of formula I as shown in the instant claims.
Wood discloses an ink composition for ink jet printing comprising a dialkyl hydroxylamine stabilizer and a water-soluble dye ¶[0114]. The alkyl groups independently comprise methyl, ethyl, or octyl groups, ¶[0028]. The dialkyl hydroxylamines provide the inks with light stability, gas fade stability, dark storage stability, and permanence of the cured inks, see abstract and ¶¶[0011,0206]. The ink compositions are preferably water-borne inks, ¶[0130]. Wood discloses other ingredients such as binders can be in the inks, such as acrylate or methacrylate copolymers and water-soluble polyurethanes, ¶0144].
Wood and Nakano are analogous art to the claimed invention because both are in the area of ink compositions for ink jet printing.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dialkyl hydroxylamine of Wood with the invention of Nakano with the motivation to improve the color fastness and light stability of the printed ink.
Regarding claim 20, Wood further discloses the hydroxylamine can be N,N-diethylhydroxylamine, ¶[0029].
Regarding claims 22, 23, 25-27, Nakano further teaches the UV curable water-based printing ink comprises a urethane (meth)acrylate made from a diisocyanate, a hydroxyl group containing (meth)acrylate, and a polyoxyalkylene glycol ether ¶[0041]. The hydroxyl containing (meth)acrylate is a compound having one or more (meth)acryloyl groups and one hydroxyl group (reads on (B’)) that reacts with the diisocyanate (reads on (A)) through a urethanation reaction ¶[0080], which reads on claims 22, 23, and 25. The polyoxyalkylene glycol monoalkyl ether forms a urethane bond with the diisocyanate ¶[0103], which reads on (C’) of claims 22, 23, and 25. Nakano further teaches that the polyisocyanate of the urethane (meth)acrylate can have three or more isocyanate groups, ¶[0088], and uses a HMDI trimer in synthesis example 6, ¶[0275], which reads on (A) of claim 26. The polyoxyalkylene glycol monoalkyl ethers such as polyethylene glycol monomethoxy ether and polyethylene glycol monoethoxy ether can be used in the urethane (meth)acrylate polymer ¶[0106], which reads on (C) of claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, Nakano further teaches the UV curable water-based printing ink composition has a viscosity preferably between 2 mPa.s and 25 mPa.s ¶[0221].
Regarding claim 36, Nakano teaches curing the UV curable water-based ink on a recording medium ¶[0216-0224]. Nakano does not teach using the dialkylhydroxylamine of claim 19 in the formulation. Wood discloses using the dialkylhydroxylamine in ink compositions that are then deposited on a recording material through a nozzle ¶[0003]. The addition of the dialkylhydroxylamine is to improve color fastness and fade stability of the printed product ¶[0011]. The ink compositions of Wood can utilize similar ingredients like water-soluble binders such as polyurethane and polymethacrylate ¶[0144]. Therefore it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dialkylhydroxylamine with the ink of Nakano and print the ink on a recording medium with the motivation of improving the color fastness and fade stability of the printed ink.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al, US20120225968 in view of Wood et al, US20040170779.
Regarding claim 33, Nakano teaches a UV curable water-based printing ink composition comprising a UV curable urethane (meth)acrylate, the structure of which is formula (1) and is nonionic ¶[0041]. Nakano further teaches the composition comprises a polymerization initiator ¶¶[0014, 0168] and a fluorescent brightening agent known as a sensitizer ¶¶[0178-0179]. The initiator is hydrophobic, ¶¶[0027, 0169], and includes at least a thioxanthone initiator, ¶[0028]. The brightening agent and initiator are mixed together and emulsified with the urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer, ¶¶[0135, 0196], and the amphiphilic urethane (meth)acrylate forms micelles in the water with the hydrophobic portion directed toward the core and the hydrophilic portion directed to the water phase; the micelles include the polymerization initiator within it, ¶¶[0199-0201], also see figures 1 and 2, which satisfies the claimed initiator being contained within a particle of the oligomer.
Among the brightening agents (sensitizers), Nakano lists thiophene benzoxazolyl derivatives ¶[0181] which reads on the sulfur compound of claim 19’s sensitizers. Nakano also exemplifies commercial brightener HOSTALUX KCB (1,4-bis(2-benzoxazolyl)naphthalene) ¶¶[0182, 0254] which also reads on the claimed nitrogen containing sensitizers. Additionally, thioxanthone is listed in the claimed sensitizers, which Nakano teaches is used as an initiator, and applicant lists thioxanthone as both initiator and a sensitizer in ¶¶[0159, 0184] of the instant specification; therefore Nakano including a thioxanthone initiator also reads on the thioxanthone sensitizer of the claim.
Nakano does not teach using a hydroxylamine of formula I as shown in the instant claims.
Wood discloses an ink composition for ink jet printing comprising a dialkyl hydroxylamine stabilizer and a water-soluble dye ¶[0114]. The alkyl groups independently comprise methyl, ethyl, or octyl groups, ¶[0028]. Wood further discloses the hydroxylamine can be N,N-diethylhydroxylamine, ¶[0029]. The dialkyl hydroxylamines provide the inks with light stability, gas fade stability, dark storage stability, and permanence of the cured inks, see abstract and ¶¶[0011,0206]. The ink compositions are preferably water-borne inks, ¶[0130], and can comprise 0.01 wt.% to about 30 wt.% of the dialkylhydroxylamine ¶[0125], which encompasses the claimed range. Wood discloses other ingredients such as binders can be in the inks, such as acrylate or methacrylate copolymers and water-soluble polyurethanes, ¶0144].
Wood and Nakano are analogous art to the claimed invention because both are in the area of ink compositions for ink jet printing. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the hydroxylamine of Wood with the invention of Nakano with the motivation to improve the color fastness and light stability of the printed ink.
Regarding claim 34, Nakano further teaches the UV curable water-based printing ink comprises a urethane (meth)acrylate made from a diisocyanate (reads on (A)) a hydroxyl group containing (meth)acrylate (reads on (B’)), and a polyoxyalkylene glycol ether (reads on (C’)) ¶[0041]. The hydroxyl containing (meth)acrylate is a compound having one or more (meth)acryloyl groups, such as monohydroxydi(meth)acrylate ¶[0082], and one hydroxyl group that reacts with the diisocyanate through a urethanation reaction ¶[0080]. The polyoxyalkylene glycol monoalkyl ether forms a urethane bond with the diisocyanate ¶[0103].
Claims 37-38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al, US20120225968 in view of Wood et al, US20040170779.
Regarding claim 37, Nakano teaches a UV curable water-based printing ink comprising a UV curable urethane (meth)acrylate ¶¶[0013, 0041], a polymerization initiator ¶[0168], a fluorescent brightening agent known as a sensitizer ¶¶[0178-0179], and at least one surfactant ¶[0068]. Nakano further teaches the UV curable water-based printing ink comprises a urethane (meth)acrylate made from a diisocyanate (reads on (A)), a hydroxyl group containing (meth)acrylate (reads on (B’)), and a polyoxyalkylene glycol ether (reads on (C’)) ¶[0041]. The hydroxyl containing (meth)acrylate is a compound having one or more (meth)acryloyl groups, such as monohydroxydi(meth)acrylate ¶[0082], and one hydroxyl group that reacts with the diisocyanate through a urethanation reaction ¶[0080]. The polyoxyalkylene glycol monoalkyl ether forms a urethane bond with the diisocyanate ¶[0103].
Nakano further teaches the ink composition comprises a polymerization initiator ¶¶[0014, 0168] and a fluorescent brightening agent known as a sensitizer ¶¶[0178-0179]. Among the brightening agents (sensitizers), Nakano lists thiophene benzoxazolyl derivatives ¶[0181] which reads on the claimed sulfur compound of claim 19’s sensitizers. Nakano also exemplifies commercial brightener HOSTALUX KCB (1,4-bis(2-benzoxazolyl)naphthalene) ¶¶[0182, 0254] which also reads on the claimed nitrogen containing sensitizers. Additionally, thioxanthone is listed in the claimed sensitizers, which Nakano teaches is used as an initiator, and applicant lists thioxanthone as both initiator and a sensitizer in ¶¶[0159, 0184] of the instant specification; therefore Nakano including a thioxanthone initiator also reads on the thioxanthone sensitizer of the claim.
The initiator is hydrophobic, ¶¶[0027, 0169], and includes at least a thioxanthone initiator, ¶[0028]. The brightening agent and initiator are mixed together and emulsified with the urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer, ¶¶[0135, 0196], and the amphiphilic urethane (meth)acrylate forms micelles in the water with the hydrophobic portion directed toward the core and the hydrophilic portion directed to the water phase; the micelles include the polymerization initiator within it, ¶¶[0199-0201], also see figures 1 and 2, which satisfies the claimed initiator being contained within a particle of the oligomer.
Nakano does not teach using a hydroxylamine of formula I as shown in the instant claims.
Wood discloses an ink composition for ink jet printing comprising a dialkyl hydroxylamine stabilizer and a water-soluble dye ¶[0114]. The alkyl groups independently comprise methyl, ethyl, or octyl groups, ¶[0028]. The dialkyl hydroxylamines provide the inks with light stability, gas fade stability, dark storage stability, and permanence of the cured inks, see abstract and ¶¶[0011,0206]. The ink compositions are preferably water-borne inks, ¶[0130]. Wood discloses other ingredients such as binders can be in the inks, such as acrylate or methacrylate copolymers and water-soluble polyurethanes, ¶0144].
Wood and Nakano are analogous art to the claimed invention because both are in the area of ink compositions for ink jet printing. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the hydroxylamine of Wood with the invention of Nakano with the motivation to improve the color fastness and light stability of the printed ink.
Regarding claim 38, Wood further discloses the hydroxylamine can be N,N-diethylhydroxylamine, ¶[0029]. The UV curable polymer of Nakano is nonionic according to formula (1) in the abstract and ¶[0041].
Regarding claim 41, Nakano teaches the UV curable water-based printing ink comprises a hydroxyl group containing (meth)acrylate, and a polyoxyalkylene glycol ether (has one terminal hydroxyl group) ¶¶[0041, 0102]. The hydroxyl containing (meth)acrylate is a compound having one or more (meth)acryloyl groups and one hydroxyl group ¶[0080].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/5/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection(s) over Matsunami have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 over Matsunami in view of Nakano.
Nakano discloses that content of the urethane (meth)acrylate is preferably 5 to 50% by mass in relation to the total amount of the ink composition; this enables the formation of a coating film and obtains properties such as satisfactory film strength and satisfactory adhesion, when used as the ink composition, ¶[0111]. This recommended amount of oligomer overlaps with both the claimed amount and the amount taught in Matsunami. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Matsunami but produce an emulsion with an oligomer amount of preferably 5-50 mass% relative to the total amount of the composition with the motivation of producing an emulsion that has satisfactory film strength and adhesion when used as an ink because this amount of oligomer enables film formation, film strength, and adhesion as disclosed by Nakano.
In response to applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to dilute the emulsions of Matsunami below the amount of 35 wt.% oligomer because of the storage stability of Matsunami’s emulsions, examiner points to Matsunami’s reasoning for the improved storage stability. The stability is not tied to the weight percent of the oligomer, instead Matsunami teaches the stability comes from the self-emulsifying oligomer itself and the urethane bonds formed with the hydroxyl groups of the polyalkylene glycol derivative and the hydroxyl groups of the hydroxyl functional (meth)acrylate ¶[0049]. Matsunami exemplifies 35 wt.% oligomer in the examples to use a consistent amount of oligomer but nowhere does Matsunami teach away from using other amounts of the oligomer. The tables applicant has provided in the remarks show that the variable Matsunami is testing is the isocyanate oligomer itself, as shown in the column labeled isocyanate type. Every composition is 35 wt.% oligomer emulsified in water; therefore the storage stability results indicate the performance of the oligomer itself. Matsunami does not teach that the emulsion would be less stable if an oligomer amount less than 35% is utilized.
The grounds of rejection based on reducing viscosity has been withdrawn and instead the reference of Nakano is applied for the motivation of using the oligomer in an amount that overlaps with the claimed amount. Nakano expressly discloses an oligomer range of 5-40 mass% to enable film forming, film strength, and film adhesion in an ink composition for ink-jet printing.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the percent of the oligomer to the total solids amount, examiner explains that the use of the word “solids” is a common term in the art that refers to the components of a composition that generally do not evaporate during the curing reaction. In coatings, the “solids” are regarded as the ingredients that exclude non-reactive components such as the water/solvent/carrier of the composition, and can include components such as the resin-forming reactants, thickeners, surfactants, pigments, initiators, and sensitizers. The term “solids” does not necessarily mean the component is in a solid physical state, such as a powder.
Furthermore, applicant uses the term “solids” to mean the components besides the water based medium in ¶[0190] of the instant specification and refers to the amounts of the liquid components in terms of weight percent relative to the total amount of solids in the composition. If applicant has a different definition of “solids” than is commonly used within the art, it is not clearly defined in the specification.
Therefore the calculation of the oligomer with respect to the total solids is correct because example 2 states that 100 parts of an emulsion of isocyanate derivative A-1, which is 35 parts oligomer, and to this 1.2 parts initiator, and 5 parts EO-isocyanurate modified triacrylate were added ¶[0064]. Therefore the total components that are not water are 35 parts oligomer + 1.2 parts initiator + 5 parts triacrylate monomer = 41.2 parts and then 35/41.2 = 84.95%. Examiner has corrected the rejection above to reflect the 1.2 parts initiator, the previous office action stated 1.4 parts which was a mistake (1.4 parts were used in the example 1 and example 3 compositions ¶¶[0059, 0067]), but whether it is 1.2 or 1.4 parts, both result in a weight % within the claimed 30-90% range.
In response to applicant’s argument that Matsunami does not include a colorant or technology regarding ink for inkjet printing, examiner points to ¶[0044] where pigments are listed as additional components and are a type of colorant, and ¶¶[0049, 0129] where Matsunami teaches the composition is useful as an ink. The designation of an inkjet printing type of ink is a future intended use of the ink. Additionally, with the new grounds of rejection using Nakano as a secondary reference, Nakano teaches inks for ink-jet printing.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/5/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection(s) over Nakano in view of Wood, sec. II page 12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Nakano does not teach the claimed sensitizers, examiner points to ¶[0181] of Nakano which lists the brightening agents (sensitizers), which includes thiophene benzoxazolyl derivatives ¶[0181] which reads on the sulfur compound of the claimed sensitizers. Nakano also exemplifies commercial brightener HOSTALUX KCB (1,4-bis(2-benzoxazolyl)naphthalene) ¶¶[0182, 0254] which also reads on the claimed nitrogen containing sensitizers. Additionally, thioxanthone is listed in the claimed sensitizers (and is a sulfur containing compound), which Nakano teaches is used as an initiator, and applicant lists thioxanthone as both initiator and a sensitizer in ¶¶[0159, 0184] of the instant specification; therefore Nakano including a thioxanthone initiator also reads on the thioxanthone sensitizer of the claim. Additionally examiner notes that the sensitizer is actually optional in claims 33 and 37, the language of the claim says “and/or a sensitizer,” but examiner has included the above in the rejections to make clear that Nakano teaches both the claimed initiators and sensitizers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights