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
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.
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) 1-2, 9-12 & 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (# US 2002/0177633).
Komatsu et al. discloses:
1. An edible inkjet ink (food dye; [0036]-[0042]), comprising:
(a) 2.5 mass % to 10 mass % of Red No. 3 (Reactive Red # 3; [0040]; 0.5 to 20%; [0035]).
(b) 0.5 mass % to 30 mass % of a salt (0.5 to 5%; [0025]-[0031]) selected from the group consisting of isopropyl citrate, triethyl citrate, monopotassium citrate, tripotassium citrate ([0028]), calcium citrate, sodium ferrous citrate, iron citrate, ammonium ferric citrate, sodium dihydrogen citrate, disodium citrate ([0028]), trisodium citrate, and sodium malate, wherein the Red No 3 is the only dye in the ink (colorants may be used alone or as a mixture of two or more; [0043]).
The Examiner draws particular attention to the Applicant that "Komatsu et al. does address a Red color, it teaches a laundry list of possible Red color (Reactive Red 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 59, 63, and 64, C.I. Solubilized Red 1, C.I. Food Red 7, 9, and 14, and C.I. Pigment Red 41, 48, 54, 57, 58, 63, 68, and 81;; [0040]); salt ([0025]-[0031]), solvent ([0044]-[0050]). The format in which Komatsu et al. presents its teaching does not change the fact that it teaches the claimed invention. It is not necessary for Komatsu et al. to present its teaching in an example format citing it in a list is sufficient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence to the contrary, to choose any of the Red color (Reactive Red 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 59, 63, and 64, C.I. Solubilized Red 1, C.I. Food Red 7, 9, and 14, and C.I. Pigment Red 41, 48, 54, 57, 58, 63, 68, and 81;; [0040]); salt ([0025]-[0031]), solvent ([0044]-[0050]) and any additives from the list, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. However, "applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others." In re Courtright, 377.
2. The edible inkjet ink of claim 1, wherein the salt is tripotassium substrate (tripotassium citrate ([0028]).
9. The edible inkjet ink of claim 1, further comprising a solvent comprising ethanol ([0051]).
10. The edible inkjet ink of claim 1, further comprising a solvent comprising ethanol ([0051]), propylene glycol ([0048]) and water ([0045]-[0046]).
11. The edible inkjet ink of claim 1, further comprising a solvent consisting of ethanol ([0051]), propylene glycol ([0048]) and water ([0045]-[0046]).
12. An edible inkjet ink (food grade dye; [0036]-[0042]), comprising:
(a) 2.5 mass % to 10 mass % of Red No. 3 (Reactive Red # 3; [0040]; 0.5 to 20%; [0035]),
(b) 0.5 mass % to 30 mass % of tripotassium citrate (0.5 to 5%; [0025]-[0031]; tripotassium citrate ([0028])) and
(c) a solvent comprising ethanol ([0051]), wherein the Red No 3 is the only dye in the ink (colorants may be used alone or as a mixture of two or more; [0043]).
The Examiner draws particular attention to the Applicant that "Komatsu et al. does address a Red color, it teaches a laundry list of possible Red color (Reactive Red 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 59, 63, and 64, C.I. Solubilized Red 1, C.I. Food Red 7, 9, and 14, and C.I. Pigment Red 41, 48, 54, 57, 58, 63, 68, and 81;; [0040]); salt ([0025]-[0031]), solvent ([0044]-[0050]). The format in which Komatsu et al. presents its teaching does not change the fact that it teaches the claimed invention. It is not necessary for Komatsu et al. to present its teaching in an example format citing it in a list is sufficient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence to the contrary, to choose any of the Red color (Reactive Red 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 59, 63, and 64, C.I. Solubilized Red 1, C.I. Food Red 7, 9, and 14, and C.I. Pigment Red 41, 48, 54, 57, 58, 63, 68, and 81;; [0040]); salt ([0025]-[0031]), solvent ([0044]-[0050]) and any additives from the list, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. However, "applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others." In re Courtright, 377.
14. The edible inkjet ink of claim 12, wherein the solvent further comprises propylene glycol ([0048]) and water ([0045]-[0046]).
15. The edible inkjet ink of claim 12, wherein the solvent consists of ethanol ([0051]), propylene glycol ([0048]) and water ([0045]-0046]).
Claim(s) 6-8, 18 & 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (# US 2002/0177633) in view of Ream et al.(# US 2016/0088859).
Komatsu et al. discloses all the limitation of edible ink except:
6. The edible inkjet ink of claim 1, wherein a color difference AE according to JIS Z 8781 is 17 or less before and after lightfastness testing of a printed image.
7. A tablet comprising a printed part that is printed using the edible inkjet ink of claim 1.
8. The tablet of claim 7, wherein the tablet is a pharmaceutical tablet.
18. The edible inkjet ink of claim 12, wherein a color difference AE according to JIS Z 8781 is 17 or less before and after lightfastness testing of a printed image.
20. A tablet comprising a printed part that is printed using the edible inkjet ink of claim 12.
21. The tablet of claim 20, wherein the tablet is a pharmaceutical tablet.
Ream et al. teaches that to have high quality print on edible medium,
7. A tablet ([0006]; [0011]; [0021]; [0080]-[0081]) comprising a printed part that is printed using the edible inkjet ink of claim 1 (see figure: 1-27).
8. The tablet of claim 7, wherein the tablet is a pharmaceutical tablet (([0006]; [0011]; [0021]; [0080]-[0081]; see figure: 1-27).
20. A tablet ([0006]; [0011]; [0021]; [0080]-[0081]) comprising a printed part that is printed using the edible inkjet ink of claim 12 (see figure: 1-27).
21. The tablet of claim 20, wherein the tablet is a pharmaceutical tablet ([0006]; [0011]; [0021]; [0080]-[0081]; [0178]; [0212]; see figure: 1-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the recording medium of Komatsu et al. by the aforementioned teaching of Ream et al. in order to have a high quality print on tablet.
With respect to claims 6 & 18, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate a color difference AE according to JIS Z 8781 is 17 or less before and after lightfastness testing of a printed image, since it has been held that it is not inventive to discovering and optimum value or workable ranges by routine experimentation. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 & 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Especially new reference Komatsu et al. discloses: An edible inkjet ink (food dye; [0036]-[0042]), comprising: (a) 2.5 mass % to 10 mass % of Red No. 3 (Reactive Red # 3; [0040]; 0.5 to 20%; [0035]), wherein the Red No 3 is the only dye in the ink (colorants may be used alone or as a mixture of two or more; [0043]; so “alone” Examiner interprets as only dye).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANISH S SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2152. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
MANISH S. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853