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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 9, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the IDS does not list each publication within the foreign Office actions or provide copies of said publications. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjou (US PG Pub 2008/0006176) in view of Amon (EP 0197891).
Regarding claim 1, Houjou teaches a pretreatment liquid [0014] comprising: a solvent having an inorganic/organic value (I/O value) of 1.0 to 3.0 [0046] (dimethyl sulfoxide); a surface tension set at less than 38 mN/m [0055]. While Houjou a surface tension of the treatment liquid having a surface tension of 10 mN/m -50mN/m, Houjou does not specifically teach the surface tension of the pretreatment liquid being measured at 25°C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to achieve an accurate measurement within a laboratory. Houjou teaches an organic solvent having a boiling point of 189°C (dimethyl sulfoxide) [0014]; however, it does not specifically disclose a transfer temperature during textile printing higher than the boiling point of the solvent. Amon teaches a transfer temperature during textile printing (Amon teaches a transfer temperature taught for textiles in page 7, lines 21-27 and a solvent – example 1, toluene has a boiling point below the transfer printing calendar heated at 140oC). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Houjou with Amon in order to provide deep and brilliant shades with excellent fastness.
Regarding claim 2 Houjou teaches that the solvent contains one or more selected from the group consisting of a sulfoxide, a polyhydric alcohol, and a polyhydric alcohol ether each having an I/O value of 1.0 to 3.0 [0046] (dimethyl sulfoxide).
Regarding claim 3, Houjou teaches that the solvent contains a sulfoxide having an I/O value of 1.0 to 3.0 [0046] (dimethyl sulfoxide).
Regarding claim 5, Houjou teaches a content of the solvent is 5% by mass or more with respect to the pretreatment liquid [0047] (content ratio of water-soluble organic solvent and other additives is 60% by mass or less), and examples of treatment liquids [0142] - [0167] show organic solvents in ranges higher than 5% by mass.
Regarding claim 6, Houjou teaches that the pretreatment liquid further contains a surfactant [0051]-[0055].
Regarding claim 7, Houjou teaches the surface tension is 28 mN/m or less [0055]. While Houjou a surface tension of the treatment liquid having a surface tension of 10 mN/m -50mN/m, Houjou does not specifically teach the surface tension of the pretreatment liquid being measured at 25°C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective 2to achieve an accurate measurement within a laboratory.
Regarding claim 8, Houjou teaches an image forming method comprising applying a pretreatment liquid [0010], to a fabric [0014] (cloth); transferring an ink layer containing a dye [0060] onto the fabric to which the pretreatment liquid has been applied [0010], figure 1. Houjou does not specifically teach a fabric containing a natural fiber or a synthetic cellulose fiber or an ink layer containing a disperse dye. However, Amon discloses a natural fiber (silk – page 2, lines 1-9) and an ink layer containing a disperse dye (page 9, lines 21-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Houjou with Amon in order to provide deep and brilliant shades with excellent fastness.
Regarding claim 10, Houjou teaches a fabric to which an ink layer containing a dye has been transferred [0014], [0060], [0010]. Hojou further teaches no washing steps in the image forming method. Amon teaches the fabric to which the ink layer containing the disperse dye has been transferred (page 2, lines 1-9 and page 9, lines 21-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Houjou with Amon in order to provide deep and brilliant shades with excellent fastness.
Regarding claim 11, Houjou teaches a solvent with a boiling point of 189°C (dimethyl sulfoxide); however, it does not specifically teach a boiling point of the solvent being 10-25°C lower than the transfer temperature. Oguchi teaches a transfer temperature, for which the boiling point of dimethyl sulfoxide is lower than the transfer temperature. (The heating temperature of transferring is between 160-220°C, and the boiling point of dimethyl sulfoxide is 189°C, which is lower than 190-220°C. The heating temperature of transferring as taught by Oguchi includes, within its range, 199°C to 220°C, is 10°C to 21°C higher than the boiling point of dimethyl sulfoxide.) It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image forming method of Houjou with the transfer temperature of Oguchi to provide for excellent production of desired hues and higher quality images.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjou (US PG Pub 2008/0006176) in view of Amon (EP 0197891), and further in view of Oguchi (US PG Pub. 2015/0130881).
Regarding claim 9, Houjou and Amon teach the pretreatment liquid taught in claim 8; however, they do not specifically teach that the fabric contains cotton or a synthetic cellulose fiber. Oguchi teaches the fabric contains cotton or a synthetic cellulose fiber [0072] - [0073]. It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image forming method of Houjou and Amon with the image forming method, fabric, and disperse dye of Oguchi to allow for the production of desired hues and higher quality images that are printable on a variety of surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 3:30 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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/LAURA MARTIN/ SPE, Art Unit 2855