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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/4/2026 is entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the KIDA reference does not teach the claimed UV dosage, irradiation intensity, and photoinitiator content. However, the examiner maintains that the KIDA reference teaches an total irradiation that overlaps the claimed range, a first and second dose within the claimed range, and an overlapping loading of initiators. The KIDA reference is presumed to be satisfactorily operable. Accordingly, using dosage, intensity and photoinitiator content within the scope of the disclosure is presumed to be satisfactorily operable.
Applicant argues KIDA does not teach a structured relationship between first and second doses. However, the reference teaches a second dose is 8-140 times the first [0099] and the total irradiation is 50-1500mJ/cm2 [0096]. Accordingly, the reference teaches the same structured dosages (a higher second dose) and also an overlapping limit on total irradiation.
Applicant points out that the examples in KIDA have higher photoinitiator loadings. However, the prior art may be relied upon for all that it teaches, not just the examples. The KIDA reference clearly teaching loading initiator at lower than 12% [0078].
Applicant argues the NAKANO reference is directed to radiation curable inks of different surface tension and color and is not related to the UV dosing sequence. However, the examiner notes this is a piecemeal analysis of the references individually rather than what they teach in combination.
Applicant further argues the hindered amines are not an acrylated amine. The examiner relied on tetramethyl piperidyl methacrylate to be an acrylated amine because it contained both amine with an acrylate. Applicant argues it is not an acrylated amine within the scope of applicant’s definition. The secondary NAKANO reference as been incorporated into the rejection to directly address the use of both acrylated amines and difunctional acrylates as polymerizable compounds in radiation curable inks.
Applicant argues that YANG merely teaches printing speed ranges without considering the first and second irradiation intensity or total irradiation requirements and photoinitiator loadings for the ink. However, the rejection indicates that high speed printing using UV curing sources is known to process at up to 2m/s. KIDA teaches a UV curing printing process and one of ordinary skill is naturally inclined to speed a process as much as possible in order to manufacture more product. The rejection therefore merely speeds up the printing speed of KIDA. The examiner is not persuaded that there would not be a reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 9, 13, 18, 22-26, 28, 30, 34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIDA et al. (US 2015/0158304) in view of NAKANO (US 2020/0165475) and YANG et al. (US 2013/0070035).
Regarding claims 1, 22, and 36,
KIDA teaches an inkjet method that uses at least two UV irradiating steps abstract. The first irradiation dose is lower than the second or subsequent irradiation dose [0094]. The total irradiation is 50-1500mJ/cm2 [0096] which overlaps the claimed range of ≤350mJ/cm2 and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. The first irradiation dose is 5-35 mJ/cm2 [0094] which falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 75 mJ/cm2. The second irradiation dose is 8-140 times the first irradiation [0099] (40-4900 mJ/cm2) which overlaps the claimed range of equal to or greater than 100mJ/cm2. The overlapping range is considered prima facie obvious MPEP 2144.05.I. The lamps are UV-LED [0100].
The photopolymerization initiator can be acylphosphine oxides [0071] and can be used with other photoinitiators [0077]. The amount of initiator is 2.5-20 mass% [0078] which overlaps the claimed range of at least 1% and less than 7% w/w any blend of photoinitiators and considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. The examiner points out there is no lower bound on the amount of acylphosphine oxide used and therefore includes 0% and the claim is met by mixing any blend of photoinitiator resulting in the total weight percent. Furthermore, the reference generally teaches mixing initiators and the total amount of initiator. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill has wide latitude in mixing different types and amounts of art recognized equivalent initiator to discover workable compositions (such as less than 5% acylphophine oxide), MPEP 2144.05.II and MPEP 2144.06.
The polymerizable material in KIDA is difunctional acrylates but does not teach acrylated amines (other than as a hindered amine) [0058]. However, NAKANO teaches that when using radiation curable ink jet ink abstract, curable at similar energy exposure [0011], known polymerizable compounds include both bifunctional methacrylates and acrylated amines [0023]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use acrylates amines instead of difunctional methacrylates as a substitution of art recognized equivalent polymerizable compounds in a radiation curable ink. The loading of polymerizable compound in KIDA is at least 5% which falls within the claimed range [0059].
KIDA teaches a printing speed of 285mm/sec (about 17 m/min). The reference does not teach printing at 60m/min. However, YANG teaches that when using multiple UV sources for curing a printed ink the high speed printing can be performed at 0.2 to 2 m/s [0050]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use high speed printing to increase the amount of product. The prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 4,
KIDA teaches irradiating two or more times which includes three or more exposures [0091]-[0092].
Regarding claim 8,
KIDA teaches specific acylphophine oxides [0071] which are considered to be polymerizable acylphosphine oxides.
Regarding claim 9,
KIDA teaches using thioxanthone initiator [0068]. The specific thioxanthones include isopropyl, diethyl, and chloro thioxanthones [0069].
Regarding claim 13,
KIDA does not teach a cooling system for the UV-LEDs and is therefore considered to be passively air cooled. The power output of the first irradiation is 5-50mW/cm2 [0095] which overlaps the claimed range and considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 18,
KIDA teaches the wavelength for the light can be 350-420 nm [0100].
Regarding claim 23,
KIDA teaches an irradiation scheme for a first irradiation, second irradiation and a subsequent radiation [0095]-[0098]. Both the first and second irradiation overlap with the claimed range of less than 50 mJ/cm3 [0095] and [0097]. In addition the subsequent irradiation, like the second irradiation can also be substantially higher and overlaps the claimed range of greater than 100mJ/cm2 [0098].
Regarding claim 24,
KIDA teaches using additional monomer [0065] which can be as little as 10 mass% [0066]. The claimed range is overlapped by the prior art range and considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 25-26,
KIDA teaches the ink is for single pass ink jet [0036].
Regarding claim 28,
KIDA teaches the pigment used in the ink can be black [0049]-[0050].
Regarding claim 30,
KIDA does not specify an atmosphere for printing. Therefore the reference implicitly uses an ordinary air atmosphere. In addition, the ink itself if mixed in air [0126] which indicates stability in air.
Regarding claim 34,
KIDA teaches a wide variety of recording mediums which may be “suitable” for food packaging [0088]-[0089].
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIDA et al. (US 2015/0158304) in view of NAKANO (US 2020/0165475) and YANG et al. (US 2013/0070035) further in view of CLAES (US 2010/0331478).
Regarding claim 32,
KIDA teaches applying the UV curable ink by inkjet but does not teach using flexographic printing. However, CLAES teaches that when using radiation curable inks, flexographic printing and inkjet printing are art recognized equivalents [0056]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use both flexographic printing and ink jet printing as a combination of art recognized equivalents MPEP 2144.06.I. The reference further introduces the concept of a primer layer which can be deposited by for example inkjet while the UV curable ink may be deposited by flexographic printing (a printing process depositing different material layers by different methods).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights