DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kida et al. (2019/0300732) in view of Saneto et al. (2019/0391297) and Jiang et al. (2004/0127614).
Regarding claim 1, Kida teaches an inkjet ink, comprising:
(A) 0.1 to 10 wt. % of a terpene resin ([0123], see Table 1, Note that the binder resin is present at 0.5%) which is a homopolymer made from alpha-pinene (note that al terpene resin solvents are made from alpha-pinene);
(B1) methyl ethyl ketone ([0076]);
(B2) acetone ([0076]); and
(C) 0.005 to 4 wt % of a polyether modified silicone having a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) value of 4 to 9 ([0131], [0135], Note that KF-6017 has an HLB value of 4.5, and note that the surfactant is included in 0.1 to 2 wt %)
a rosin resin ([0123]), each weight percentage based on a total weight percentage of the ink jet ink,
wherein each weigh percentage recited above is based on a total weight of the ink jet ink,
wherein a weight ratio of the methyl ethyl ketone (B1) to the terpene resin (A) ((B1):(A)) is 10:1 to 100:1 (see Table 1, Note that the ratio of solvent to resin meets the limitation).
Kida does not expressly teach wherein a weight ratio of the methyl ethyl ketone (B1) to acetone (B2) ((B1):(B2)) is 3.2:1 to 3.5:1. Saneto teaches wherein a mixture of methyl ethyl ketone and acetone solvents is contemplated to be within the claimed range (Saneto, Table at [0375], Note contents of 52.7 parts by mass to 16.2 parts by mass, respectively, resulting in a ratio of 3.25:1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to mix the two solvents in relative amounts along the lines of that disclosed by Saneto in the ink disclosed by Kida because doing so would amount to applying a known solvent ratio range to a known solvent mixture to obtain predictable results.
Furthermore, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to obtain the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all of the claimed components of the ink are present, and thus to claim a range or a ratio of one component to another is not inventive. Further, it should be noted that the claimed weight ratio does not appear from the specification to be a result-dependent variable that would add patentable weight.
Kida in view of Saneto does not teach wherein the rosin resin (D) is a hydrogenated acidic rosin. Jiang teaches a marking composition that includes a hydrogenated acidic rosin as a binder component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to at the time of invention to use the hydrogenated rosin disclosed by Jiang as the rosin binder disclosed by Kida because doing so help prevent oxidation of the binder.
Regarding claim 7, Kida in view of Saneto and Jiang teaches the inkjet ink of claim 1, which has a total ketone content of at least 50 wt. %, based on a total weight of the inkjet ink, wherein the total ketone content is defined as the total content of methyl ethyl ketone, acetone, and any additional ketone solvent(s) (Kida, see Table 1).
Further, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to obtain the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all of the claimed components of the ink are present, and thus to claim a range or a ratio of one component to another is not inventive.
Regarding claim 8, Kida in view of Saneto and Jiang teaches the inkjet ink of claim 1, further comprising (B3) a glycol ether (Kida, [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Kida in view of Saneto and Jiang teaches the inkjet ink of claim 1, which is substantially free of solvents having a boiling point higher than 175 °C (Note that methyl ethyl ether and acetone have boiling points lower than 175 °C).
Further, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to obtain the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all of the claimed components of the ink are present, and thus to claim a range or a ratio of one component to another is not inventive.
Regarding claim 10, Kida in view of Saneto and Jiang teaches the inkjet ink of claim 1, wherein the polyether modified silicone (C) is a block copolymer having a pendent graft structure (Kida, Note that KF-6011 meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 15, Kida in view of Saneto and Jiang teaches the inkjet ink of claim 13, wherein the rosin resin (D) is present in an amount of up to 10 wt. %, based on a total weight of the inkjet ink (Kida, see Table 1).
Further, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to obtain the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all of the claimed components of the ink are present, and thus to claim a range or a ratio of one component to another is not inventive.
Regarding claim 16, Kida in view of Saneto and Jiang teaches the inkjet ink of claim 1, further comprising (E) a colorant (Kida, [0137]).
Regarding claim 17, Kida in view of Saneto and Jiang teaches a printed article, comprising: a substrate and a dried form of the inkjet ink of claim 1 disposed on the substrate (Kida, [0071]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Affidavit, filed 1/28/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Saneto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights