DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendment received on 01/23/2026:
• Claims 1-6 are currently pending. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama (JP-2021042263-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Moriyama”) and with reference to the certified human translation of para. 0103 of Moriyama (hereinafter referred to as “certified human translation of para. 0103 of Moriyama”), in view of Abe et al. (JP-2017039889-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Abe”).
Regarding claims 1-2, Moriyama teaches an inkjet ink (see Moriyama at pg. 2, para. 3, teaching a water-based inkjet ink) comprising:
• a pigment; a polysaccharide; a water-soluble organic solvent; and self-emulsifying polyolefin resin particles that are free of the pigment (see Moriyama at pg. 2, para. 3, teaching the ink as containing a pigment; also see Moriyama at pg. 13, para. 8, teaching the ink may include other additives, such as polysaccharides; also see Moriyama at pg. 4, para. 8, teaching the ink may include a water-soluble organic solvent; also see Moriyama at pg. 2, para. 7 and pg. 9, para. 6, teaching the ink may contain water-insoluble resin particles B, which may include a resin having a polyolefin skeleton; also see Moriyama at pg. 10, para. 5-7, teaching the polyolefin may be modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid; thus, it necessarily follows that the polyolefin is “self-emulsifying” due to the hydrophilic nature (derived from the carboxylic acid group) of the polyolefin; alternatively, see Moriyama at pg. 11, para. 6, teaching Hardlen Na-1001 as a suitable commercially available polyolefin; Hardlen resins are “self-emulsifying polyolefin” resins, as disclosed by Applicant’s specification at pg. 10, lines 1-4; also see certified translation of para. 0103 of Moriyama, teaching the water-insoluble resin B to be added separately from the water-insoluble resin particles A, and thus, necessarily indicating the water-insoluble resin B to be free from the pigment (also see the Response to Arguments below));
• the water-soluble organic solvent contains a specific glycol ether compound, the specific glycol ether compound includes propylene glycol monomethyl ether, propylene glycol monopropyl ether, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, dipropylene glycol monopropyl ether, or triethylene glycol monobutyl ether (see Moriyama at pg. 4, para. 2 and 7-8, teaching the ink to include an alcohol as a solvent, and that the ink may further contain other organic solvents, such as glycol ethers; also see Moriyama at pg. 4, para. 11, teaching dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether as a suitable glycol ether);
• the specific glycol ether compound has a percentage content of at least 3.0% by mass and no greater than 24.0% by mass (see Moriyama at pg. 4, para. 12, teaching that when the ink contains two or more kinds of solvents, the ratio of the alcohols with respect to the organic solvent ranges from 50 mass% or more; thus, Moriyama necessarily teaches that in the case that the other organic solvent (i.e., the glycol ether) is present, the content of the other organic solvent ranges from greater than 0 to 50 wt% with respect to the content of the organic solvent (100 – 50 = 50); also see Moriyama at pg. 4, para. 13, teaching the total content of the organic solvent in the ink to range from 5 to 50 mass%; thus, Moriyama necessarily suggests a total content for the glycol ether in their ink to range from greater than 0 wt% to 25 wt% (0% glycol ether minimum ratio • 5% total content of solvent minimum = 0% glycol ether minimum in ink; 0.5 glycol ether maximum ratio • 50% total content of solvent maximum = 25% glycol ether maximum in ink); this range of greater than 0 to 25 wt% overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05).
While Moriyama teaches the ink outlined above, Moriyama fails to explicitly teach (1.) a ratio (My/Mx) of a mass My of the pigment to a mass Mx of the self-emulsifying polyolefin resin particles to be at least 0.24 and no greater than 3.10, and (2.) the polysaccharide as having a percentage content of at least 0.01% by mass and no greater than 0.20% by mass, wherein the polysaccharide is a sodium carboxymethyl cellulose.
Regarding (1.), Moriyama teaches examples where the content of the polyolefin resin in the ink is 5 mass% (see machine-translated Table 1 of Moriyama at pg. 24, which is a translation of Table 1 shown on pg. 24 of untranslated Moriyama; Table 1 teaches the use of a polyolefin resin, R-4, in the examples; also see Table 5 of Moriyama at pg. 25; Table 5 teaches Example 22, which contains 5 wt% of the Resin R-4, i.e., the polyolefin resin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the content of the polyolefin resin in the ink of Moriyama to be 5 wt%, as Moriyama teaches an example as such (see Example 22 of Moriyama at Table 5 at pg. 25; also see Table 1 of Moriyama at Table 1 at pg. 24).
Moriyama teaches the content of the pigment in their ink to range from 1 to 25 mass% in the ink (see Moriyama at pg. 5, para. 9). Thus, following the above modification, the ratio of the content of the pigment to the content of the self-emulsifying resin particles ranges from 0.2 to 5 (1% pigment minimum/5% polyolefin resin = 0.2 ratio minimum; 25% pigment maximum/5% polyolefin resin = 5 ratio maximum); this range of 0.2 to 5 overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding (2.), Abe teaches an aqueous inkjet ink containing carboxymethyl cellulose (see Abe at pg. 2, para. 7). Abe further teaches the presence of the carboxymethyl cellulose improves ejection stability and scratch resistance of the resulting image via the carboxymethyl cellulose adsorbing to the pigment particles (see Abe at pg. 2, para. 4-5 and pg. 3, para. 5). Moreover, Abe teaches the pigment may be a microcapsule pigment and that the pigment may be carbon black (see Abe at pg. 4, para. 2-3). Additionally, Abe teaches the content of the carboxymethyl cellulose to range from 0.001 to 1 mass% in the ink, and that when it is outside this range, sufficient scratch resistance and ejection stability may not be obtained (see Abe at pg. 3, para. 5). Furthermore, Abe teaches sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as a suitable carboxymethyl cellulose (see Abe at pg. 3, para. 4).
Moriyama teaches their pigment to be encapsulated, that the pigment may be carbon black, and further that their ink may include a polysaccharide (see Moriyama at pg. 4, para. 14; pg. 5, para. 6; and pg. 13, para. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as a polysaccharide in an amount ranging from 0.001 to 1 wt% in the ink of Moriyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve ejection stability and scratch resistance of the resulting image (see Abe at pg. 2, para. 4-5; pg. 3, para. 5).
This range of 0.001 to 1 wt% overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, see Moriyama at pg. 4, para. 2-4, teaching the ink as containing an alcohol, such as 1,3-propanediol.
Regarding claim 4, see Moriyama at pg. 4, para. 12, teaching that when the ink contains two or more kinds of solvents, the ratio of the alcohol to the solvent ranges from 50% or more; thus, the ratio of the alcohol to the glycol ether in the ink of Moriyama ranges from 50:50 or higher, i.e., 1:1 or higher; this ratio range of 1:1 or higher overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 1 modification above, setting forth modified Moriyama as teaching a polyolefin resin content of 5 wt%; this range falls completely within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, see Moriyama at pg. 8, para. 3, teaching the water-insoluble resin particles A as containing a pigment encapsulated in a dispersed resin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth below.
First, Applicants argue Moriyama teaches their water-insoluble resin particles A as containing a pigment, and does not disclose resin particles where the self-emulsifying polyolefin resin particles are free from pigment particles (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 5-6).
However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
Moriyama teaches that in addition to their water-insoluble resin particles A, the ink may contain a water-insoluble resin B (see Moriyama at pg. 9, para. 6). The water-insoluble resin B is explicitly taught to be added in addition to the water-insoluble resin particles A, and thus, to be separate from the water-insoluble resin particles A (see certified translation of para. 0103 of Moriyama). The water-insoluble resin B of Moriyama—NOT the water-insoluble resin particles A— corresponds to the claimed self-emulsifying polyolefin resin particles. While it is true that Moriyama teaches their water-insoluble resin particles A to include an encapsulated pigment (see Moriyama at pg. 8, para. 3), the water-insoluble resin B is not taught to coat the pigment. The water-insoluble resin B is taught by Moriyama to improve hot water resistance (see certified translation of para. 0103 of Moriyama), and to simply be mixed in with the other ingredients of the ink (e.g., see the examples of Moriyama). Moriyama further teaches examples containing both the water-insoluble resin B separate from the pigment dispersion (see Example 22 of untranslated Moriyama at pg. 31, teaching an example containing resin R-4 (corresponds to the water-insoluble resin B) and pigment dispersion p-2, with the pigment dispersion p-2 containing the water-insoluble resin particles A). Consequently, Moriyama necessarily teaches their ink may contain a polyolefin resin free of pigment via their water-insoluble resin B.
Next, Applicants argue their ink achieves excellent discharge stability and superior adhesion while suppressing bleeding and ink crawling (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 5).
However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2145. A mere conclusion that Applicants ink achieves excellent discharge stability and superior adhesion while suppressing bleeding and ink crawling, without pointing to any specific data or evidence, is not enough to show nonobviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/J.E.B./
Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731