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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 06/23/2026 have been entered. Claims 16-20, 22-25, 27-28, 30-32 and 34-39 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 16-20, 22-25, 27-28, 30-32 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caffier et al (EP 3502197, of record, English equivalent US 2021/0108099, ‘099 hereafter is cited in this office action) in view of Shiobara et al (US 2016/0177114, ‘114 hereafter).
Regarding claims 16-20, 22-25, 27-28, 30-32 and 34-37, ‘099 discloses a writing instrument and a method of making the same ([0017]-[0025]), containing a non-aqueous writing ink which comprises a solvent including glycol ethers, alcohols or mixture thereof, in a content range of 35 to 80 wt%, satisfying present claims 25 and 27 ([0018], [0026]); a coloring agent being a dye in a content range of 5 to 30 wt% ([0018], [0028]-[0032]); a resin being a viscosity imparting agent, which is a ketone resin with a content of 13.5 wt% satisfying present claim 31 ([0050], [0066], Table 1, Ketonic resin); and a gelling agent comprising a mixture of hydrophilic silica particles and a fatty acid amide wax, and the fatty acid amide having chemical structure satisfying present claims 22-23 and 35 ([0018], [0033]-[0049]). ‘099 also discloses that the content of hydrophilic silica can be 0.1 to 0.5 wt% ([0049]), content of fatty acid amide wax being 0.1 to 0.6 wt% ([0048]), and content of the gelling agent can be 0.1 to 1.2 wt% ([0047]). ‘099 further discloses that the writing instrument is a ball pen ([0004], [0007], [0027], claim 16), which inherently has a writing tip and a tubular ink cartridge with a first open end and a second open end, the tubular ink cartridge being in fluid communication with the writing tip via the first open end and with external surroundings of the writing instrument via the second open end, and wherein the tubular ink cartridge has an inner diameter of between 1 mm and 2.5 mm, which is well-known in the art. ‘099 discloses that the ink composition also comprises one or more additives including clear drain agents, lubricant and dispersing agent ([0050]), and a viscosity at the shear rate 100 S-1 can be 2000 cps ([0068]). ‘099 does not disclose the ink composition further comprising a polyvinyl-pyrrolidone having a weight average molecular weight and the content range as presently claimed. However, in the same filed of endeavor of non-aqueous ink composition, ‘114 discloses an ink composition ([0020]-[0051) comprising an organic solvent ([0030]-0037], a coloring agent ([0022]-[0029], a resin ([0038]-[0047]), and other components ([0050]-[0051]), wherein a polyvinylpyrrolidone with weight average molecular weight being higher than 200 KDa and a content range being in a preferred range of 0.1 to 2.0 wt%, specifically 0.2 or 0.3 wt% as in examples ([0048], Table 2, Examples 108 and 109; Table 4, Examples 203 to 207, PVP K90), which may have an amount lower than the amount of mixture of silica and fatty acid amide wax, to improve binding properties of the ink and suppressing surplus ink on leading tip end for a ball-point pen ink ([0048]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add polyvinylpyrrolidone as taught by ‘114 into the ink composition of ‘099, in order to render an ink composition having better binding properties and reducing ink leakage for an ball-point pen. Regarding claims 32 and 36, the cited references do not expressly disclose that the ink has loss factor and viscosity at rest as presently claimed. However, cited references fairly suggest an ink composition being substantially identical to the ink composition as presently claimed, it is reasonable to expect that the prior art ink composition would have possessed the same properties including loss factor and viscosity in the presently claimed range, in absence an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 38, modified ‘099 teaches all the limitations of claim 37, ‘099 also discloses the writing ink consisting of the components as recited (See Example 1 , Table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art Shiobara’114 teaches that the PVP must be used together with PVB and present claim 1 recites “the writing ink comprises no further rheology modifier than the homo or copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone" to excludes PVB. However, the newly added limitation does not exclude PVB being a resin in the writing ink as claimed. In addition, the rejection as drafted above does not require PVB being added to modify the ink of Caffier’099. ‘114 generally teaches that PVP can be used as a stringiness-imparting resin in an ink composition to enhance binding properties and suppressing surplus ink on leading tip end ([0048]), which is sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use PVP to modify an ink composition in order to improve ink’s binding properties and suppressing surplus ink on the tip end.
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights