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§ 102 and 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.
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. 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Saito et al. (US 2016/0060810 Al) when taken with Kumeta et al. (US2016/0264804 Al).
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 may be Surfynol 61 (para. 31) but does not recite its HLB value. Nonetheless, Kumeta et al. provides evidence that the HLB value of Surfynol 61 is 6 (para. 49).
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 27-OCT-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that all of Saito’s inks of Table 2 include 2-pyrrolidone which has been excluded by the amended claims. This is not persuasive, because Saito et al. teaches numerous solvents (para. 35-37) including water. As such, as such 2-pyrrolidone, though recited in Table 2, is not a critical ingredient.
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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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 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.
MARK EASHOO, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767