DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 02/17/2026. Applicant filed a Response and amended claim 1 on 05/15/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are pending.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected.
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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to provide further proper antecedent basis, it is suggested to amend “a water-insoluble” to “the water-insoluble” in claim 5, line 2
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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. 103 as obvious over Pan et al, US 2016/0312404 A1 (Pan) in view of Saito et al, US 2017/0292035A1 (Saito).
Regarding claims 1-2, Pan teaches 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. The cationic polymer helps to coagulate the binder and pigment in the later applied digital inks to prevent the digitally applied inks from migrating from their desired location. Coagulating the ink binder and pigment is believed to enhance color intensity. The cationic polymer provides better wash resistance than conventionally used metal salts. Preferred cationic polymers are copolymers of sulfur dioxide and quaternized amine versions of diallylamine monomers, such as 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]).
Pan teaches 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]).
The preferred pH range of Pan of less than about 5.5, and most preferably about 1.0 or 2.0 to 5.5, falls within the claimed pH range of less than 6.
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]).
Treated textiles can be printed by inkjet printing (Pan; [0037]). The inkjet inks use pigment colorants because they are light stable. Deliver high coloration and are durable for extended wash cycles (Pan; [0038]). The inks also contain a binder that contribute to the wash fastness and durability of the printed images when used with the pretreatments, and are preferably polymeric binders in particulate form (Pan; [0039]).
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 teach 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, as explained above, Pan teaches preferred pH’s of less than about 5.5, most preferably in the range of about 1.0 or 2.0 to 5.5 (i.e., less than 6 as claimed) (Pan; [0029-0030]).
Pan does not explicitly teach the addition of a urethane resin that is a water-insoluble component to the treatment compositions as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Saito teaches a treatment liquid composition used for printing a cloth by an ink jet method. The treatment liquid composition contains water, a 1,2-alkanediol, and an aggregating agent (Saito; [0033]).
The aggregating agent has a function of aggregating the pigment through an interaction with at least one of a pigment and a resin contained in the ink composition. Thus, the color development properties and the fixability of an image to be recorded by the ink composition can be increased. The aggregating agent can increase the viscosity (thicken) of the ink composition through an interaction with at least one of the pigment and the resin contained in the ink composition. Thus, excessive permeation of the ink composition into cloth can be prevented and blurring and bleeding can be reduced (Saito; [0040]).
The aggregating agent may be a cationic resin, wherein examples of cationic resins include cationic urethane-based resins and cationic allylamine-based resins (Saito; [0050]). As the cationic urethane-based resin, commercially-available resins are usable, such as by means of example only, SUPERFLEX 610 and 620 (Saito; [005]). The instant specification at paragraphs [0050-0051] and [0057] discloses that Superflex 610 and 620 are water-insoluble urethane resins. Therefore, at least the SUPERFLEX 610 and 620 of Saito read on the water-insoluble urethane resins as claimed.
The cationic allylamine-based resin can be, by means of example only, diallyl dimethylammonium chloride sulfur dioxide copolymers (Saito; [0053]).
The ink may comprise a pigment and resin particles (Saito; [0057-0062], [0084], and [0109]).
Saito is analogous art as it teaches treatment compositions for cloth which may comprise a quaternary ammonium salt polymer or a water-insoluble urethane resin, for use with an inkjet printing ink containing a pigment and resin particles.
The teachings of Saito would have presented a recognition of equivalency in the prior art, and would have presented strong evidence of obviousness in combining a cationic water-insoluble urethane resin such as SUPERFLEX 610 or 620, with a cationic allylamine-based resin such as a dimethyl-diallylammonium chloride sulfur dioxide copolymer, in order to provide a cationic polymer additive for treatment compositions, wherein the cationic polymer coagulates/agglomerates the binder and pigment of the later applied inkjet ink, prevents ink migration and bleeding, enhances color intensity and fixability, and prevents ink permeation into the printed cloth. The combining of equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06.I.).
It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069 1072. Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious); and In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378-79, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (That the two claimed types of active agents, GABA-a agonists and ARBs, were known to be useful for the same purpose—alleviating hypertension—alone can serve as a motivation to combine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coagulating polymer of Pan, such as the copolymer of dimethyl-diallyl ammonium chloride with sulfur dioxide, with a water insoluble urethane resin as claimed, such as Superflex 610 or 620, in order to provide a coagulating cationic resin in the treatment compositions of Pan in view of Saito.
Regarding claim 3, Pan in view of Saito are 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 in view of Saito are 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 teaches 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.
The aggregating agents of Saito may be used in amounts of 0.1% by mass or more to 40% by mass of less, based on the total mass of the treatment liquid composition. (Saito; [0055]). 0.1% by mass or more to 40% by mass of less, based on the total mass of the treatment liquid composition, overlaps in scope with the claimed 1.0% by mass or less of a water-insoluble component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cationic (water-insoluble) urethane resin aggregating agents of Saito to the compositions of Pan in amounts of 0.1% to 1.0% by mass, based on the total mass of the treatment compositions, based on the mass% range taught by Saito.
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).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Saito 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 in view of Saito are relied upon as teaching 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 of 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 wash fastness 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 in view of Saito do 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 in view of Saito 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 Saito and further 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 Amendments filed 05/15/2026 have overcome the claim objection previously of record. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of claim objection, as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 4-5, filed 05/15/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103/102 as being unpatentable over Pan et al, US 2016/0312404 A1 (Pan); and of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Arai et al, US 2010/0003417 A1 (Arai), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Specifically, Pan, alone or in combination with Arai, does not teach or suggest treatment compositions comprising a urethane resin that is a water-insoluble component as presently claimed.
However, upon further consideration and search, new grounds of rejection are made over Pan in view of Saito, and over Pan in view of Saito and further in view of Arai, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okada et al, US 2020/0123701A1, teaches pretreatment compositions for the inkjet printing of fabrics, the pretreatment compositions comprising a cationic resin, wherein the cationic resin may be a urethane-based resin or an allylamine resin ([0039], [0042], [0047-0048], [0050]).
Miyasa et al, US 2020/0040523 A1, teaches pretreatment compositions for the inkjet printing of cloth, the pretreatment compositions comprising a cationic resin, wherein the cationic resin may be a urethane-based resin or an allylamine resin ([0006], [0025-0026], [0028], [0034] and [0037]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights