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 Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 1/16/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 1/16/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to an ink composition and to limit the weight-average molecular weight of component (B) to 3,000-8,000. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 is drawn to an ink composition already comprising a dispersed dye or pigment in an aqueous solvent. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 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, 7, 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 200 mg of surfactant which provides for about 17 wt % surfactant and about 83 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 700 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above, which address the claimed weight average molecular weight of component (B).
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 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 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