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 .
This communication is responsive to the claim set and Response to Restriction filed 01/22/2026. Claims 1-7, 12, 15-20, 22-25, and 30 are currently pending. The elected claims 1-7, 12, 15-19 and 30 are under consideration in this Office Action.
Claims 20 and 22-25 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-7, 12, 15-19 and 30 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7, 12, 15-19 and 30 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 the third line from the bottom: “combinations thereof and” should read –combinations thereof, and--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 7, 12, 16 and 17 recite “preferably”, the word renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations following “preferably” are not considered in this Office Action.
Claim 12 line 3 recites “respectively” which is confusing because it is not clear what “respectively” refers back to.
Claim 12 line 5 recites “such as”, the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations following “such as” are not considered in this Office Action. In addition, the claim recites “the ionic hydrophilic repeating unit R3 optionally
containing a neutralized acid group, neutralized basic group or other ionic functionality.” “optionally” indicates that the following limitations are not required.
Claim 4 defines the Hansen Solubility Parameter value, however, it is not clear where the square root symbol ends.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the polar bonding value" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US5,519,085).
Regarding Claim 1, Ma teaches an inkjet ink composition comprising water or a mixture of water and at least one organic component; pigment and an ABC triblock copolymer (ab.). Attention is drawn to Example 3 (13:38-50), wherein the pigment dispersion contains 40 parts carbon black and 200 parts of 10% triblock copolymer MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA (poly(methacrylic acid-b-benzyl methacrylate-b-ethoxytriethylene glycol methacrylate). Therefore, the weight ratio between the pigment and the copolymer is 2. Ma further teaches that the hydrophobic center block polymer (B block polymer ) binding to pigment (claim 1), the hydrophilic block polymer (A block polymer) facilitates dispersion of the pigment in water (4: 20-31); and the C block polymer provides solubility and compatibility with organic components of the ink composition (5:25-35). Therefore, one ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably infer that the triblock copolymer MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA has MAA to stabilize the pigment dispersion in water, BzMA to bind with pigments and ETEGMA providing solubility and compatibility with organic components. Organic components contribute to flocculation of aqueous pigment dispersions (5:29-31), thus, BzMA and ETEGMA function to anchor pigments.
Additionally, ETEGMA has the structure of:
PNG
media_image1.png
286
992
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which has an ether bond coupled to a terminal ethyl group. Therefore, the MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA block copolymer has a block polymer stabilizing pigments and two other repeating units and one of the repeating units (ETEGMA) reads on the claimed repeating unit R1. Thus, the MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA block copolymer is substantially identical to the claimed dispersant D, as such the claimed segments are presumed to be inherent ( see MPEP 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 2, ETEGMA has an ether bond coupled to a terminal ethyl group.
Regarding Claim 3, ETEGMA contains ethylene glycol groups.
Regarding Claims 4-6, ETEGMA has one more -C-O-C- unit than the instant preferred R1 unit EOEOEA (2-(2ethoxyethoxy)ethyl acrylate), therefore, the Hansen Solubility Parameter value and the polar bonding value should be substantially the same as or a bit higher than those of EOEOEA. ETEGMA is a non-ionic monomer. In addition, Ma teaches that the C block monomer can be ethoxyethyl methacrylate (5:64-66), which is one of the preferred R1 monomers of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 7, benzyl methacrylate is a hydrophobic methacrylate; ETEGMA is less hydrophobic than benzyl methacrylate due to the -C-O-C groups.
Regarding Claim 12, methacrylic acid is ionic hydrophilic.
Regarding Claim 15, BzMA and ETEGMA does not have an ionic group.
Regarding Claim 16, in the triblock copolymer MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA, the sum number of BzMA and ETEGMA is 100% of the repeating units number n. The tripolymer has MAA13//BzMA10//
ETEGMA4 (10: 10-12), therefore, the number ratio of ETEGMA to BzMA is 0.4.
Regarding Claim 17, Ma teaches the dispersant copolymer is a triblock copolymer.
Regarding Claim 18, as discussed in claim 1, the triblock MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA has a block polymer constituting ETEGMA monomers and a block polymer constituting BzMA monomers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 19 and Claim 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US5,519,085), as applied to Claim 1 at para. 9.
Regarding Claim 19, although Ma teaches the hydrophobic block being the center of the tri-block copolymer, however, it can be conceived that if putting the two hydrophobic blocks (BzMA block and ETEGMA block), the triblock chain would be more flexible; with hydrophilic block in the center and the hydrophobic blocks at the ends, the polymer can “loop” on pigment surfaces, or the hydrophilic center can extend into the water, providing a thick, hydrated, and stable brush-like layer that prevents particles from re-agglomerating. Therefore, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of instant application, to modify the triblock polymer to have the hydrophilic block in between of the two hydrophobic blocks.
Regarding Claim 30, ss discussed at para. 9, Ma teaches an inkjet ink composition comprising water or a mixture of water and at least one organic component; pigment and an ABC triblock copolymer (ab.), wherein one of the preferred triblock copolymer is MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA, which comprises an anchoring segment and a stabilization segment, and the anchoring segment contains ETEGMA which has -C-O-C bond to the terminal ethyl group.
Ma further teaches the ink composition comprising preferably 0.1 to 8 wt.% of pigments and 0.1 to 8 wt.% of the triblock copolymer, therefore, the weight ratio between pigment and copolymer is 0.0125 to 80, overlapping the claimed 0.1 to 1.0.
Claims 1-7, 12, 15-19 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ma2002 (US2002/0035173 A1, US patent publication of the IDS reference EP0822238 A2).
Regarding Claims 1 and 30, Ma2002 teaches an inkjet ink consisting of an aqueous carrier medium, 10 to 60 wt.% colorant, and o.1 to 30 wt.% a mixture of at least one block copolymer and at least one random copolymer (claim 13), wherein the colorant is a pigment ([0013]) and wherein the random copolymer is present in the amount of 1 to 100 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the block copolymer (claim 13). Thus, the weight ratio between the pigment P and the block copolymer is from 0.33 to 1,200 ((10/30)*(100/101) to (60/0.1)/(1/2)), overlapping the claimed 0.05 to 2 or 0.1 to 1.
Ma2002 exemplifies the block polymer being MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA (poly(methacrylic acid-b-benzyl methacrylate-b-ethoxytriethylene glycol methacrylate), which has the same structure as the triblock copolymer discussed at paragraph 9, therefore, MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA reads on the claimed dispersant D for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, ETEGMA has an ether bond coupled to a terminal ethyl group.
Regarding Claim 3, ETEGMA contains ethylene glycol groups.
Regarding Claims 4-6, ETEGMA has one more -C-O-C- unit than the instant preferred R1 unit EOEOEA (2-(2ethoxyethoxy)ethyl acrylate), therefore, the Hansen Solubility Parameter value and the polar bonding value should be substantially the same or a bit higher than those of EOEOEA. ETEGMA is a non-ionic monomer.
Regarding Claim 7, benzyl methacrylate is a hydrophobic methacrylate; ETEGMA is less hydrophobic than benzyl methacrylate due to the -C-O-C groups.
Regarding Claim 12, methacrylic acid is ionic hydrophilic.
Regarding Claim 15, BzMA and ETEGMA does not have an ionic group.
Regarding Claim 16, in the triblock copolymer MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA, the sum number of BzMA and ETEGMA is 100% of the repeating units number n. The tripolymer of Preparation II has MAA12//BzMA15//ETEGMA4 (10: 10-12), therefore, the number ratio of ETEGMA to BzMA is 0.27.
Regarding Claim 17, MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA is a triblock copolymer.
Regarding Claim 18, as discussed in claim 1, the triblock MAA//BzMA//ETEGMA has a block polymer constituting ETEGMA monomers and a block polymer constituting BzMA monomers.
Regarding Claim 19, Ma2002 discloses that block copolymer trending to form stable micelles, micelles with the hydrophobic pigment-binding segments in the core do not wet the pigment surface effectively ([0004]). However, compared to the disclosed triblock copolymer, a triblock copolymer having hydrophilic block between the hydrophobic block and the less hydrophobic block would further reduce the possibility that the hydrophobic pigment-binding segments falling in the core of micelles because the middle hydrophilic block increases the repulsion between hydrophobic blocks and reduces the driving force for hydrophobic blocks collapsing into the micelle core. Further, with hydrophilic block in the center and the hydrophobic blocks at the ends, the polymer can “loop” on pigment surfaces, or the hydrophilic center can extend into the water, providing a thick, hydrated, and stable brush-like layer that prevents particles from re-agglomerating. Therefore, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of instant application, to modify the triblock polymer to have the hydrophilic block in between of the two hydrophobic blocks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/HUIHONG QIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763