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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 5/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan (Krishnan et al, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 1999, pp. 355-366) in view of Felder (US 2011/0244390).
With respect to claims 1-4 and 11, Krishnan discloses a polymer-surfactant composition for use in ink compositions (page 355, 2nd column) comprising acetylenic diol surfactants (Surfynol 104 and Surfynol 440) with maleic anhydride-copolymers (SMA 1000H; SMA 3000H and SMA 1440H) (abstract). Surfynol 104 reads on claimed formula (1) when R1 is a C4 alkyl group and R2 is a C1 alkyl group, and Surfynol 440 reads on claimed formula (2) when R3 is a C4 alkyl group and R4 is a C1 alkyl group (Figure 1). SMA 1000H reads on formula (3) for a = 1 and fully neutralized with ammonia, SMA 3000H reads on formula (3) for a = 3 and fully neutralized with ammonia, and SMA 1440H reads on formula (3) for a = 1 and partially neutralized with ammonia (Figure 1). Polymer solutions are formed in water so that 100 g of polymer solution containing 0.3, 1, 3, and 10 wt % solids) is mixed with a titrated amount of surfactant (page 358, “2.2 Methods”). Figure 5 shows that amounts of surfactant of up to 600 mg are added to 100 g of polymer solution, e.g., one solution containing 1 wt % polymer (1 g polymer) includes 100 mg of surfactant which provides for about 9 wt % surfactant and about 91 wt % polymer.
Krishnan teaches that SMA 1000H has MW = 1600 and SMA 1440H has MW = 2500, neither of which appears to overlap with claimed range. However, Felder provides evidence that the molecular weights disclosed by Krishnan are number average (Mn) and not based on weight average (Mw) as required by the instant claims. In Table 6 (paragraph 0334), Felder teaches that SMA 1000H has Mn of 2800 and Mw of 5500 and that SMA 1440H has Mn of 2800 and Mw of 7000. Therefore, Krishnan inherently discloses weight average molecular weights of 5500 and 7000 that are within claimed range of 3,000-8,000.
While the examples of Krishnan do not add a pigment to the aqueous composition, it discloses that the polymer-surfactant compositions are used in inks and inks typically contain pigments (page 355, second column).
Given that Krishnan teaches that the aqueous polymer-surfactant composition is useful in inks and that inks typically contain pigment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare an ink composition including pigment from Krishnan.
With respect to claim 5, Krishnan discloses in the abstract that Surfynol 104 has HLB value of about 3, and Surfynol 440 has HLB of about 8.
With respect to claim 6, Krishnan teaches that nonionic surfactants based on acetylenic diol are unique in that they have good defoaming properties (page 357, first full paragraph).
Although Krishnan does not explicitly disclose the foam height, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the foam height given that Krishnan teaches that the acetylenic diol surfactant are unique surfactants which provide defoaming.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan (Krishnan et al, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 1999, pp. 355-366) in view of Felder (US 2011/0244390) and further in view of Rehman (US 7,678,844).
The discussion with respect to Krishnan and Felder in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
Krishnan and Felder fail to disclose weight-average molecular weight of the styrene-maleic anhydride (SMA) copolymer salt that is 3,000-5,000.
Rehman discloses an aqueous inkjet ink composition comprising SMA and acetylenic polyethylene oxide, like Krishnan, and teaches that a suitable weight-average molecular weight of the SMA ranges from 400 to 15,000 (abstract; col. 11, lines 5-9).
Given that both Krishnan and Rehman are drawn to ink compositions comprising SMA and acetylenic surfactants and further given that Rehman teaches that weight-average molecular weights of the SMA lower than the 5,500 exemplified by Krishnan are suitable in these compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a SMA having relatively lower weight-average molecular weight that overlaps with the claimed range of 3000-5000.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Krishnan does not teach 1-11.8 wt % acetylenic surfactants and 88.2-99 wt % of styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer.
Figure 5 shows that amounts of surfactant of up to 600 mg are added to 100 g of polymer solution, e.g., one solution containing 1 wt % polymer (1 g polymer) includes 100 mg of surfactant which provides for about 9 wt % surfactant and about 91 wt % polymer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki (US 9,284,465) discloses an ink composition comprising at least acetylene glycol-based surfactants and a pigment-dispersion resin such as a styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights