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 .
Response to Amendment
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-18 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and clarifications in the response filed on May 5, 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a/1,2) rejection of claims 1-18 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed on May 5, 2026.
New Rejections
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (US 2002/0135650) in view of Masaaki (JPO English translation of JP-52-12008-A).
Regarding claim 1, Nagai teaches a water-based ink (aqueous pigment ink [0171]) comprising: a pigment (carbon [0191]), water (balance [0191]) and an acidic preservative which is capable of suppressing generation of fungal colonies (antiseptic or antifungal [0159]) comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of sodium dehydroacetate ([0191], antiseptic or antifungal [0159]) which is a species of a dehydroacetate, and sodium sorbate ([0159]) which is a species of a polyvalent unsaturated fatty acid salt.
Although Nagai only provides examples in which a content of the acidic preservative in the water-based ink is 0.2% by mass, relative to a total mass of the water-based ink (0.2 wt% of sodium dehydroacetate, Example 1 [0191], antiseptic or antifungal [0159]), which is less than the lower limit of the claimed range of 0.5% by mass to 5.0% by mass, Nagai teaches that the lesser content of the acidic preservative, is merely exemplary (embodiments disclosed in this application are to be considered in all respects as illustrative and not limiting [0245]).
Masaaki teaches that a content of an acidic preservative (sodium dehydroacetoacetate, 1st para of page 2) in a water-based ink (antifungal agent, last para of page 1) which is capable of suppressing generation of fungal colonies (antifungal, 1st para of page 2), is greater than 0.2% by mass, being from 0.5 to 4.0% by mass, relative to a total mass of the water-based ink (3rd para of page 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.5% by mass to 5.0% by mass, for the purpose of preventing any fungal growth (mildew proof, 2nd para of page 2). Sodium dehydroacetoacetate is a derivative of sodium dehydroacetate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have increased the content of the acidic preservative in the water-based ink of Nagai, from 0.2% by mass, to one that is within a range of 0.5% by mass to 5.0% by mass, relative to a total mass of the water-based ink, in order to not just suppress generation of fungal colonies, but to prevent any fungal growth, as taught by Masaaki.
Regarding claim 2, Nagai teaches that the pigment is a self-dispersing pigment ([0097]).
Regarding claims 4-5, Nagai teaches that the polyvalent unsaturated fatty acid salt is sodium sorbate ([0159]).
Regarding claim 6, Nagai teaches that the dehydroacetate is sodium dehydroacetate ([0191]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Nagai teaches that the water-based ink further comprises a surfactant ([0191]) which is an acetylene-based surfactant (acetylenic glycol-based surfactant [0143]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Nagai teaches that the water-based ink further comprises a penetrant (penetrating agent [0153]) which comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 1,2-hexanediol (improving the dissolution [0150]) which is an alkylene diol, and triethylene glycol-n-butyl ether (BTG) (triethylene glycol monobutyl ether [0153]) which is a glycol ether compound.
Regarding claim 12, modified Nagai teaches that an amount A of the acidic preservative in the water-based ink is within the claimed range of 0.5% by mass to 5.0% by mass relative to a total mass of the water-based ink, for the purpose of preventing any fungal growth, as described above.
In addition, Nagai teaches that an amount B of the surfactant is 1 wt% by mass relative to a total mass of the water-based ink (surfactant, Example 1 [0191]), such that amount A and amount B satisfy Condition (X) of Applicant in that the ratio A/B = 0.5 (0.5/1) which is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 50.
Regarding claim 13, modified Nagai teaches that an amount A of the acidic preservative in the water-based ink is within the claimed range of 0.5% by mass to 5.0% by mass relative to a total mass of the water-based ink, for the purpose of preventing any fungal growth, as described above.
In addition, Nagai teaches that an amount C of the penetrant in the water-based ink is 1 wt% (2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol, Example 1 [0191] which is an alkylene diol penetrating agent [0153]) such that amount A and amount C satisfy Condition (Y) of Applicant in that the ratio A/C = 0.5 (0.5/1) which is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 5.
Regarding claim 14, Nagai teaches that the water-based ink further comprises a penetrant (penetrating agent [0153]) which comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 1,2-hexanediol (improving dissolution [0150]) which is an alkylene diol, and triethylene glycol-n-butyl ether (BTG) (triethylene glycol monobutyl ether [0153]) which is a glycol ether compound.
Regarding claim 15, Nagai teaches that the polyvalent unsaturated fatty acid salt is sodium sorbate ([0159]).
Regarding claim 16, Nagai teaches that the water-based ink is suitable for inkjet recording ([0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Nagai teaches a printed recording medium (inkjet recording [0016]) comprising: a recording medium (plain paper [0016]); and the water-based ink printed on the recording medium (printing on plain paper [0004]).
Regarding claim 18, Nagai teaches an ink cartridge (recording liquid cartridge [0065]) comprising the water-based ink stored therein (recording liquid [0065]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new reference in the new combination of references in the new grounds of rejection.
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 should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular workweek between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights