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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “0.5 to 35 percent by mass or less” is redundant. Please delete the words “or less”. 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 5948512) in view of Ikoshi (US 2011/0057986).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches the following limitations: an ink jet ink composition, which is a water-based ink, comprising: a colorant (column 5, lines 30-32); a plurality of inorganic oxide particles (alumina – column 4, lines 10-30); an amino acid (saccharide – column 6, lines 14-35); a water-soluble organic solvent (column 5, lines 43-60); and water (column 4, lines 10-15), wherein the content of the amino acid with respect to the total mass of the ink is 1.0 to 10 % by mass (column 6, lines 36-40); a content of a water-soluble organic solvent S1 having an SP value of 27.5 (J/cm3)1/2 or less with respect to a total mass of the water-soluble organic solvent is 35 percent by mass or less (triethylene glycol monomethyl ether, wetting agent 0.5-10% - column 4, lines 45-67); the water-soluble organic solvent contains at least one of triethylene glycol monobutyl either and triethylene glycol momethyl ether (column 4, lines 45-67), a total content of the at least one triethylene glycol monobutyl ether and triethylene glycol monomethyl ether is 3% by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the ink composition (wetting agent is as low as 0.5% - column 5, lines 45-67), and the inorganic oxide particles are selected from a group consisting of silica, alumina, zirconia, antimony oxide, tin oxide, tantalum oxide, zinc oxide, cerium oxide, lead oxide, and indium oxide (alumina oxide – column 4, lines 10-30).
Kubota does not disclose a water-soluble silicate, with a content of the water-soluble silicate with respect to a total mass of the ink is 0.6 percent by mass or less, or the amino acid including trimethyl glycine. Ikoshi discloses disclose a water-soluble silicate [0031], with a content of the water-soluble silicate with respect to a total mass of the ink is 0.5 percent by mass or less [0040], or the amino acid including trimethyl glycine [0135] – [0140].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kubota with Ikoshi in order to reduce curling and improve print quality.
Regarding claim 2, Kubota teaches a content of the inorganic oxide particles with respect to the total mass of the ink is 1 .0 to 1 0 percent by mass (column 4, lines 58-64).
Regarding claim 3, Kubota teaches a content of a solid content including the colorant and the inorganic oxide particles with respect to the total mass of the ink is 5.0 percent by mass or more (column 5, lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 4, Kubota teaches a content of a solid content including the colorant and the inorganic oxide particles with respect to the total mass of the ink is 5.0 percent by mass or more (column 5, lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 5, Kubota teaches an ink composition; however, it does not teach a water-soluble silicate with respect to the total amount of the ink is 0.00001 to 0.5 percent by mass. Ikoshi teaches a water-soluble silicate with respect to the total amount of the ink is 0.00001 to 0.5 percent by mass [0040]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kubota with Ikoshi in order to reduce curling and improve print quality.
Regarding claim 6, Kubota teaches an ink composition with a colorant (column 5, lines 30-32); however, it does not teach the colorant includes a self-dispersible pigment. Ikoshi teaches the colorant includes a self-dispersible pigment [0104]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kubota with Ikoshi in order to reduce curling and improve print quality.
Regarding claim 7, Kubota teaches a content of the inorganic oxide particles as being 0.1 to 15% by mass. (column 4, lines 58-64); however, it does not teach water-soluble silicate, and therefore does not teach the ratio of a content of inorganic oxide particles to water-soluble silicate being from 3-50,000. Ikoshi discloses water-soluble silicate being in a range of 0.001 – 0.4% by mass [0041]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kubota with Ikoshi in order to reduce curling and improve print quality. Further, modifying Kubota with Ikoshi would provide the ratio of a content of the inorganic oxide particles to the content of water-soluble silicate within the range from 3 to 50,000.
Regarding claim 8, Kubota teaches the content of the water-soluble organic solvent S1 having the SP value of 27 (J/cm3)1/2 or less with respect to the total mass of the water-soluble organic solvent is 0.5 to 35% by mass (column 5, lines 45-67).
Regarding claim 9, Kubota teaches a content of the water with respect to the total mass of the ink is 80% by mass or less (column 5, lines 61-67, claim 13).
Regarding claim 10, Kubota teaches the content of the amino acid with respect to the total mass of the ink jet ink composition is 1.0 to 7% by mass (column 6, lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota teaches the ink jet ink composition is used for recording on an absorbing recording medium (column 1q, lines 12-22, paper is absorbing).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota teaches ejecting the ink jet ink composition from an ink jet head to a recording medium so as to be adhered thereto (column 1, lines 12-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taniguchi (US 2022/0204793)
Taniguchi (US 2022/0306881)
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 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