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 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) 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 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. teaches ink jet printing onto a cotton fabric (para. 101) but does not recite its water absorbency value. However, 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 it's 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 07-MAY-2026 have been fully considered and have been substantially responded to in the above art rejection. Specifically, the newly applied reference Keijo et al. (JP 2016190936A) and factual evidence of Surfynol 400 Series Surfactants and Olefine Acetylenic Chemicals have been used in the above rejection to address the issue of an acetylene-based surfactant having a HLB value between 7 and 8.
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