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 .
Claim Interpretation
Applicant has amended claim 5 to state that “the fabric having a water absorbency has no cationic compound”. It is noted that the original written description, at paragraph 157, states that “In the present specification, the fabric to which the treatment liquid composition is not attached denotes a fabric not containing a cationic compound.”. As such, the claims have been interpreted as the amended limitation being directed to the fabric before pretreatment.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Saito et al. (US 2016/0060810 Al) in view of Keijo et al. (JP 2016190936A, see translation citations) and Ellis (US 2007/0067928 A1) when taken with Surfynol 400 Series Surfactants or alternatively when taken with Olefine Acetylenic Chemicals.
Regarding claims 5-6: Saito et al. teaches the basic claimed method, comprising: discharging/ejecting an ink composition from an ink jet head and adhering/attaching it onto a fabric (paras. 17, 70, and 101); wherein the ink composition comprises, a non-white pigment (para.57-65), a resin particle (para. 46-56), an acetylene based surfactant in the amount of 0.1 to 1.0 parts by mass of the total ink composition (para. 67-68 and para. 30-31), and water (para. 35-38). Saito et al. further teaches the use of various solvents including water or organic solvents that are not 2-pyrrolidone (para. 35-37 and 66) and as such 2-pyrrolidone is not a critical ingredient.
Saito et al. teaches that the acetylene-based surfactant is not particularly limited and may be selected from the commercially available surfactants such as Surfynol 465 (para. 31 and 67). Saito et al. does specifically not teach that the acetylene-based surfactant has an HLB value between 7 and 8. Nonetheless, Keijo et al. teaches use of Surfynol 440 in an ink for use on textiles (pg. 8). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted Surfynol 440 as taught by Keijo et al. for the Surfynol 465 of Saito et al. since Keijo et all suggests that the two surfactants are functionally equivalent for use in textile inks. Surfynol 400 Series Surfacants provides evidence that the HLB value of Surfynol 440 is 8 (pg. 2).
Alternatively, Saito et al. teaches that the acetylene-based surfactant is not particularly limited and may be selected from the commercially available surfactants such as Olfine E series surfactants, specifically, E1010 (para. 31 and 67). Saito et al. does specifically not teach that the acetylene-based surfactant has an HLB value between 7 and 8. Nonetheless, Keijo et al. teaches use of E1004 in an ink for use on textiles (pg. 8). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted E1004 as taught by Keijo et al. for the E1010 of Saito et al. since Keijo et all suggests that the two surfactants are functionally equivalent for use in textile inks. Olefine Acetylenic Chemicals provides evidence that the HLB value of E1004 is 7-9 (pg. 3).
Saito et al. does not specifically teach using a fabric of light color. Nonetheless, Ellis teaches using a white or colored fabric, including dark colored fabrics (para 30). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted a light or white colored fabric for the dark colored fabric of Saito et al. since Ellis suggests that white or colored fabric, including dark colored fabrics are functionally equivalents.
Saito et al. does not teach using propylene glycol as a solvent in the ink jet composition. Saito does teach various water soluble organic solvents for the ink composition including triethylene glycol (para. 66 and 37). Ellis teaches using various water soluble organic solvents for an ink composition including triethylene glycol and propylene glycol (para 56). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted propylene glycol for the water soluble organic solvent of Saito et al. since Ellis suggests that propylene glycol is a functionally equivalent water soluble organic solvent.
Saito et al. teaches ink jet printing onto a cotton fabric (para. 101) but does not recite its water absorbency value. Saito et al. further teaches that it is known in the art to apply a multivalent metal salt pretreatment prior to ink jet printing (para. 4) to provide wash fastness and friction fastness even on dark colored fabric. Although Saito et al. does not specifically state that a fabric/textile before pre-treatment does not have a cationic compound, it is very much implied that the fabric does not have a have a cationic compound before pre-treatment as its presence would negate the need for pretreatment. As such, it is submitted that the fabric of Saito et al. does not have a cationic compound before pretreatment. It is also noted that applicant's original specification indicates that cotton fabrics are known to have a water absorbency, evaluated using the claimed method of measuring, as being above 1 (see.
Para. 158). Alternatively, if the cotton fabric of Saito et al. does not have a water absorbency above 1, then it is submitted that one of ordinary skill, at the time of filing, would have found it obvious to have substituted a cotton fabric having a water absorbency above 1, for the testing in its examples as a functional equivalent printing test material in order to determine the quality and viability of printing on such type of cotton fabric.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20-AUG-2026 have been fully considered and have been substantially responded to in the above art rejection. Specifically, the newly applied reference Ellis (US 2007/0067928 A1) addresses the arguments regarding a propylene glycol solvent and use of a light color fabric.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EASHOO whose telephone number is (571)272-1197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am - 4pm.
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 httr://,AJ\Nv;,uspto.gov/!nterviewpract!ce,
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Patricia Mallari, can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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
l1ttps://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.
MARK EASHOO, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights