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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/09/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this case, claim 1 recites “an amount of the dimethylpyrazole-blocked isocyanate is in the range of 0.1% by mass to o15.0% by mass”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain such amount of dimethylpyrazole-blocked isocyanate is based on what, such as total amount of treatment liquid composition or some other materials’ content? Similarly, claim 1 recites “an amount of the polyamide epihalohydrin polymer is in the range of 0.1% by mass to 1.5% by mass”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain such amount of polyamide epihalohydrin polymer is based on what, such as total amount of treatment liquid composition or some other materials’ content? Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness. All claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaeriyama (WO2020218612) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US 20220041880 has been used for citations) in view of Okada et al. (US20220033666) and Chidate (US2019/0234015).
Kaeriyama teaches a set of ink jet composition comprising a pretreatment liquid composition and an ink composition (para. [0150], [0151]), wherein the ink composition comprising water (i.e., aqueous), a pigment; and a water-soluble polymer having a carboxy group (para. [0009]-[0012], [0045], [0046]). Kaeriyama further teaches pigments having average particle diameter 10 nm to 200 nm (para. [0056]) and the ink composition can also contain resin particles (para. [0087]-[0088]), wherein such resin particles can be acrylic resin including an anionic group containing (meth)acrylate, polyamide etc. (para. [0089]). Kareiyama also teaches the pretreatment liquid composition including at least one aggregating agent selected from the group consisting of acids, cationic polymers, and polyvalent metal salts, wherein such pretreatment composition having a pH value less than 5 and the cationic polymers examples include a cationic urethane resin, a cationic acrylic resin, a cationic vinyl resin, a cationic olefin resin, a cationic polyamine, and a cationic allylamine resin (para. [0014], [0028], [0031], [0112], [0125], [0126]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” a cationic polyamine as a cationic polymer in the pretreatment liquid composition because choosing cationic polyamine from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of cationic polymers for producing a pretreatment liquid composition would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP§ 2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 1, Kareiyama does not expressly teach the pretreatment liquid containing a water-resistant agent including 0.1% to 15.0% by mass of dimethylpyrazole-blocked isocyanate, or 0.1 to 1.5% by mass of polyamide epihalohydrin polymer from.
Okada et al. teaches a treatment liquid composition comprising a block isocyanate compound, and a cationic compound (claim 1, para. [0011]), wherein the cationic compound can be polyamine (para. [0026]-[0028]), a block isocyanate compound can be dimethylpyrazole-blocked isocyanate (para. [0019], [0074], claim 4), wherein the content the block isocyanate compound in terms of a solid content with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid composition is preferably 0.01 to 30 percent by mass, more preferably 0.05 to 10 percent by mass (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such content of dimethylpyrazole-blocked isocyanate as shown by Okada et al. to modify the pretreatment liquid of Kareiyama because by doing so can help improve the storage stability of the treatment liquid composition in aqueous solution as suggested by Okada et al (para. [0016], [0018]). As for the claimed “water-resistant agent”, Okada et al. already teaches such dimethylpyrazole-blocked isocyanate protecting isocyanate group not reacting with water in aqueous solution (para. [0016]), therefore, such dimethylpyrazole-blocked isocyanate is a water-resistant agent.
Chidate teaches cationic resin can be compounds obtained by polymerizing the monomers containing amine and epihalohydrin, such as polyamide epihalohydrin copolymers etc. (para [0157]) and such cationic resin content can be from 0.1% to 25% by mass (para. [0159]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known 0.1% to 25% by mass of such polyamide epihalohydrin polymers as shown by Chidate to modify the cationic resin of Kareiyama because adopting such well-known content of polyamide epihalohydrin polymers as cationic resin to modify a well-known pretreatment liquid of Kareiyama for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP§ 2143 KSR).
As for the claimed “water-resistant agent”, Chidate disclosed polyamide epihalohydrin polymer is the same as that of instantly claimed, therefore, similar function of being water-resistant agent would be expected.
Regarding claim 2-3, as for the claimed “the composition is used by coating a fabric”, it is noted that such limitation is an intended usage of such claimed treatment composition, but does not structurally limit the instantly claimed treatment composition. As for the claimed “the L* value of the fabric is 90 or more”, it is noted that such limitation is associated with the fabric which is the material the treatment composition going to recorded on (i.e., an intended usage), but does not structurally limit the instantly claimed treatment liquid composition.
Regarding claim 4, Kareiyama already teaches such limitation as discussed above.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaeriyama (WO2020218612) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US 20220041880 has been used for citations) in view of Okada et al. (US20220033666) and Chidate (US2019/0234015) as applied above, and further in view of Sugihara (WO2019130704) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US20210130639 has been used as citations).
Kareiyama in view of Okada and Chidate has been described as above. Kareiyama further teaches the ink composition having a pH value range in of 7 to 10 (para. [0107]), and pigments having average particle diameter 10 nm to 200 nm (para. [0056]). Apparently, such pigments particles having volume-average particle diameter within or overlapping with that of instantly claimed range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP§ 2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 5, Kareiyama in view of Okada and Chidate does not expressly teach the resin particle having a volume-average particle diameter of 20 nm and 500 nm or less.
Sugihara teaches an aqueous ink composition comprising resin particles (para. [0206]-[0208]) wherein such resin particles is the same resin particles used in the pretreatment liquid (para. [0050], [0052]) and such resin particles having volume average particle size of 30 to 500 nm (para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such volume average particle size of resin as shown by Sugihara to modify the aqueous ink composition of Kareiyama in view of Okada and Chidate because by doing so can help provide an aqueous ink composition exhibiting excellent discharge stability, excellent printed item image quality as suggested by Sugihara (para. [0063], [0207]-[0208]). Furthermore, adopting resin particles with such well-known volume average particle size to modify a known aqueous ink composition for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPEP§ 2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 6, Kareiyama already teaches the ink composition can contain resin particles (para. [0087]-[0088]), wherein such resin particles can be acrylic resin including an anionic group containing (meth)acrylate (para. [0089]). Since Kareiyama disclosed resin particles containing anionic group, therefore, particle components having antitonicity is expected. Kareiyama also teaches the pigment being dispersed via pigment dispersant wherein pigment dispersant is adsorbed on the surface of the pigment and at least part of the pigment is coated (para. [0058]). Kareiyama further teaches pigment dispersant can include a carboxy group containing monomer a sulfonic acid group-containing monomer, and a phosphoric acid group-containing monomer (para. [0061]-[0063], table in para. [0188]), it is noted that carboxylic group, sulfonic acid group, phosphoric acid group are all anionic. Therefore, Kareiyam disclosed pigments having anionicity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of current rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732