DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, the term “the polyamide epihalohydrin polymer” should be amended to read “the polyamide polyamine epihalohydrin polymer” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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 nonobviousness.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pan et al, US 2016/0312404 A1 (Pan).
Regarding claims 1-2, Pan discloses an aqueous blend of an azetidinium functionalized polymer and a polymer having a quaternary amine group for use on a substrate such as textiles and garments that are going to be digitally printed (Pan; Abstract).
Commercially available azetidinium polymers include AMRESTM, KYMENETM, and PolycupTM. These azetidinium polymers are generally referred to as poly(aminoamide)-epichlorohydrin resins. Such resins are prepared by alkylating a water-soluble polyamine containing secondary amino groups with epichlorohydrin (Pan; [0020] and [0022]). The preferred azetidinium functionalized polymer is a polyamide-polyamine-epihalohydrin resin (i.e., a polyamide polyamine epihalohydrin polymer as claimed) (Pan; [0031]).
The second component in the pretreatment solution is a cationic polymer, wherein a preferred polymer is a copolymer of dimethyl-diallylammonium chloride with sulfur dioxide, corresponding to DanfixTM (i.e., a quaternary ammonium salt polymer other than polyamide polyamine epihalohydrin polymer as claimed) (Pan; [0024]).
The pretreatment on a textile or fabric forms a partial or complete coating on the fibers or substrate (i.e., used by coating a fabric of claim 2) (Pan; [0048]).
In Table 1, Pan exemplifies Pretreatment A and Pretreatment B (Pan; [0052]). Pretreatment A and Pretreatment B both comprise PolycupTM 7360 or 172 (i.e., a polyamide polyamine epichlorohydrin polymers as claimed) (Pan; [0020], [0051] and [0052]). Pretreatment A and Pretreatment B both comprise DanfixTM 303, i.e., a copolymer of a quaternary ammonium salt of N,N-dimethyldiallylammonium chloride and sulfur dioxide (i.e., a quaternary ammonium salt polymer other than polyamide polyamine epihalohydrin polymer as claimed) (Pan; [0051-0052]).
The pretreatment compositions are applied to fabrics (Pan; [0053-0055]).
Although Pan does not explicitly disclose the pH of Pretreatments A and B, Pan exemplifies the addition of itaconic acid (i.e., an acid agent) in an amount of 1.55 parts by weight to Pretreatment B (Pan; [0052]). Further, Pan discloses when the pretreatment composition comprises a mixture of azetidinium functionalized polymer and a copolymer of sulfur dioxide and allylamine and/or diallyl amine, the pH of the pretreatment composition should be made acidic to prevent gel formation. If necessary, an acid should be added to the pretreatment composition to ensure that the pH is below 7.0, preferably less than about 5.5, and most preferably in the range of about 1.0 or 2.0 to 5.5 (Pan; [0029-0030]). Therefore, Pan discloses pretreatment compositions having a pH less than 6 as claimed, as the preferred pH range of the exemplified polymer mixture in Pretreatment compositions A and B is 5.5 or less.
A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2131.02.III.
Alternatively, in light of the motivation provided by Pan to adjust the pH of the pretreatment compositions to an acidic range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of the pretreatment compositions of Pan, such the exemplified compositions Pretreatment A and B, to below 5.5 as preferred by Pan, in order to prevent gelation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Pan is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pan teaches that the pretreatment can be used on white and light colored textiles and fabrics without causing discoloration or yellowing (Pan; [0036]).
Regarding the claimed L* value of the fabric, it is noted that such limitation is associated with the fabric to which the treatment liquid is applied (i.e., an intended use), but does not structurally limit the claimed treatment liquid composition.
Regarding claim 5, Pan is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, where Pretreatment A and B of Table 1 comprise PolycupTM 7360 or 172 (i.e., polyamide polyamine epichlorohydrin polymers) and DanfixTM 303 (i.e., a copolymer of a quaternary ammonium salt of N,N-dimethyldiallylammonium chloride and sulfur dioxide), and Pretreatment B additionally comprises itaconic acid (Pan; [0051-0052]). All of these components are water soluble. The only additional components present in Pretreatment A and Pretreatment B in an amount over 1.0% by mass are the water-soluble organic solvents dipropylene glycol and isopropyl alcohol (Pan; [0052]). Therefore, Pan discloses compositions wherein over 1.0% by mass of a water-insoluble component is not contained, relative to the total mass of the treatment liquid composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the above rejection.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai et al, US 2010/0003417 A1 (Arai).
Arai was cited in the PTO-892 mailed 09/22/2025.
Regarding claim 6, Pan is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Pan teaches that the textile substrates which are treated with the pretreatment compositions can be printed, particularly by inkjet printing with an inkjet ink (Pan; [0037-0038]). Use the pretreatment compositions of Pan in combination with an inkjet ink to treat and print a textile reads on the claimed “set” comprising an inkjet ink composition and treatment liquid composition.
Pigments are especially suitable for use in the inkjet inks because they are light stable, deliver high coloration and are durable over extended wash cycles. The pigments particles are desirably reduced to have a mean particle size of less than about 200nm, more preferably less than 100nm (Pan; [0038]). A mean particle size of less than about 200nm, more preferably less than 100nm, overlaps in scope with the claimed volume-based average particle diameter of 20 to 500nm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The pigmented inks contain binders that contribute to the washfastness and durability of the of the printed images when used in combination with the fabric pretreatments. Preferred binders include, e.g., vinyl acetate, acrylic, polyester and polyurethane binders. If the ink binder is in a particulate form (i.e., a resin particle as claimed), it is desirable that the average size of the binder particles is small and the distribution is narrow. Binder particles having mean sizes below 100nm and more preferably below about 50nm are desirable (Pan; [0039]). Binder particles having mean sizes below 100nm, more preferably below about 50nm, overlap in scope with resin particle volume-based average particle diameters of 20 to 500nm as claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Pan teaches that the cationic polymer helps to coagulate the binder and pigment in later applied digital inks to prevent the digitally applied inks from migrating from their desired location. Coagulating the ink binder and the pigment is believed to enhance color intensity, especially on polyester fibers (Pan; [0023])
Pan does not explicitly teach wherein the pH of the inkjet ink composition exceeds 8 as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Arai teaches an image forming method comprising applying onto a recording medium an ink composition comprising a water-soluble solvent, a pigment, a polymer particle and water (Arai; Abstract and [0011]). Before or after the ink application, a treatment liquid containing at least a coagulation accelerator, capable of forming a coagulate, is brought into contact with the ink to form an image on the recording medium. The pigment in the ink aggregates when contacted with the treatment liquid, and thus the image is fixed onto the recording medium (Arai; [0251-0253]). Coagulation accelerators include cationic polymers such as quaternary ammonium salt polymers, epihalohydrin-amine copolymers, and mixtures thereof (Arai; [0256], [0258-0260], [0262-0263] and [0275-0278]).
An acidic compound-containing coagulate can generate a coagulant by changing the pH of the ink composition. Herein, the pH of the treatment liquid is 1 to 6, more preferably 2 to 5, and still more preferably from 3 to 5 from the viewpoint of coagulation of the ink. The pH of the ink composition used in the discharging process is preferably 7.5 or more, and more preferably 8 or more (Arai; [0281]). In a particular preferred embodiment, the pH of the ink is 7.5 or more and the pH of the treatment liquid is 3 to 5 from the viewpoint of improvements in image density and image resolution, and increasing the ink jet recording rate (Arai; [0282]).
Arai is analogous art as it teaches treatment liquid compositions for use with inkjet inks comprising pigments and polymer particles, the treatment liquids comprising quaternary ammonium salt polymers, polyamine epihalohydrin polymers, and mixtures thereof, and wherein the pH of the treatment liquid is preferably 3 to 5.
In light of the motivation provided by Arain to adjust the pH of the ink jet ink to 7.5 or more, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of the ink jet inks of Pan to 7.5 or more, preferably 8 or more, in order to obtain effective coagulation and fixing of the ink on the printed substrate, improved image density and image resolution, and increased ink jet recording rates. Preferred ink pH’s of 8 or more overlap in scope with ink pH’s exceeding 8 as claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Pan in view of Aria are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 6 upon as set forth above. Pan teaches that the pigment particles are stabilized by means of a dispersant or are self-dispersing. Preferably, the stabilizing groups on the pigment particles and/or dispersant are anionic in nature (i.e., pigment particles having anionicity). Anionic groups interact strongly with the pretreatment compositions to limit penetration of the ink particles through the treated fabric, thereby delivering vibrant and washfast colors to the target fabric (Pan; [0038]).
The binders particles include acrylics (i.e., resin particles having anionicity as claimed) (Pan; [0039]).
Given that Pan discloses inkjet inks that overlap the presently claimed inkjet inks, including inks comprising pigment particles comprising an anionic group and acrylic resin particles, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pigments and resin particles having anionicity, which are both disclosed by Pan and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, in light of the motivation provided by Pan to use pigment and dispersants with anionic stabilizing groups, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select pigment and binder particles having anionicity in order to limit penetration of the ink particles through the treated fabric, and deliver vibrant and washfast colors to the fabric, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 4-5, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sagara (JP 2017-043727) in view of Arai (US 2010/0003417); and claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sagara in view of Arai, and further in view of Katsuragi (US 2015/0258833), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Specifically, Sagara, alone or in combination with Arai and/or Katsuragi, does not teach or suggest treatment compositions comprising a polyamide-polyamine epihalohydrin polymer as currently claimed.
However, upon further consideration and search, new grounds of rejection are made over Pan et al, and over Pan et al in view of Arai et al, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saito et al, JP 2009046780(A) cited in the IDS filed 12/19/2025 (see machine translation for citations except Formula (I)), teaches an inkjet receiving agent comprising a cationic polyurethane resin (A) containing a structural unit (a) represented by formula (I) (i.e., a quaternary ammonium salt polymer), a water-soluble magnesium salt (B), and a cationic group-containing water-soluble resin (C) (claim 1 and formula (I)). The cationic water-soluble resin (C) is preferably an amine epihalohydrin resin or an epihalohydrin polyamide resin [0113]. Specifically, it is preferable to use epihalohydrin polyamide obtained by reacting polyamide polyamine with epihalohydrin [0129]. The substrates include woven fabrics [0153].
Arai et al, JP 2016196117(A) cited in the IDS filed 05/01/2025 (see machine translation for citations), teaches a processing liquid for recording materials comprising organic composite particles containing a cationic polymer having crosslinking properties, a cationic polymer not having crosslinking properties, and an anionic polymer [0010]. The cationic polymer having crosslinking properties is preferably a polyamide amine-epihalohydrin resin ([0011] and [0018]). The cationic polymer not having crosslinking properties includes quaternary ammonium salts [0020].
Fujii et al, US 2012/0320137 A1, teaches an inkjet treatment liquid comprising a coagulating agent. The coagulating agent may be a water-soluble cationic polymer including cationic epichlorohydrin condensates and cationic polyamide polyamine compounds ([0086] and [0100]). Generally, an inkjet pretreatment liquid is set to have a low pH, and when the inkjet treatment liquid comes into contact with the inkjet ink, an anionic pigment is coagulated (acid deposition) to fix on a recoding medium [0086]. When the pH of the inkjet ink is lower than 7 or higher than 11, problems such as degeneration and leakage of the ink and ejection defects may occur [0187].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732