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
The amendment filed 11/3/2025 is entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant points out that the prior art relied upon has a different classification and inventive nature. Applicant argues the different field of invention of the prior art makes the claims non-obvious. The examiner is not persuaded by the argument because they are both in the field of inkjet printing photo polymerizable compositions and the prior art renders the claimed steps obvious for the reasons described below.
Applicant argues the KIDA reference teaches multiple irradiation steps but does not teach the specific radiation dosages. However, the examiner noted that the ranges taught by KIDA overlap the claimed ranges which is considered prima facie obvious. One of ordinary skill reading the KIDA reference would understand that dosages can be used across all of the range disclosed in KIDA, including the subranges claimed by applicant.
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 be 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 the overlapping ranges do not consider the secondary considerations. It is not clear what secondary considerations applicant is referring to. The argument appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill would expect the claimed ranges to be inoperable as a radiation curable composition. The examiner does not find this persuasive because the prior art teaches an overlapping range as operable.
Applicant argues that YANG does not teach an ink composition that is capable of being cured at the claimed press speeds. However, the KIDA and NAKANO references teach the ink composition and irradiation dosages. Accordingly, the same composition and the same irradiation dosage will be capable of being processed at the same speeds. YANG merely demonstrates the known speeds for photocuring inkjet material.
Applicant argues the CLAES reference is not related to KIDA or the claimed invention. The examiner disagrees because the reference is in the field of printing material on a substrate. Claim 1 is directed to a method of curing ink while claim 32 is directed to a method of printing ink. The examiner maintains that there are many known techniques for printing ink and provided CLAES to show different techniques for printing that can be used together. Therefore when applying ink in KIDA one of ordinary skill would understand the plurality of printing techniques available to them according to CLAES, each of which is prima facie obvious and equivalent for the purposes of applying ink to a substrate.
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)..
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 does is 5-35 mJ/cm2 [0094] which falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 75 mJ/cm2. The second irradiation does 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].
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) 29 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) further in view of YANG et al. (US 2013/0070035).
Regarding claim 29,
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.
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) 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
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 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