DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi et al. (2018/0320071) in view of Okuda et al. (2019/0092958).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Umebayashi teaches ink jet ink comprising:
water (Table 2, K2, Water) in an amount of 50% by mass or more ([0464]),
a water-soluble organic solvent (Table 2, propylene glycol), and particles including a polymer P ([0183], urethane) and a polymerizable monomer M ([0549], SR833S),
wherein, when a mass content of the water-soluble organic solvent is defined as Ws and a mass content of the polymerizable monomer M is defined as Wm, a Ws/Wm ratio is 1.1 or more ([0549]-[0555], Table, Note that the total amount of 3.5 grams SR833S of the entire MC dispersion, approximately 90 grams total, about 4% of the total dispersion. The MC dispersion is present in the total ink K2 amount at 38% of ink, and thus the total amount of SR833S in the ink is about 1.15 percent. The solvent propylene glycol is present at 4.7 percent, and thus the ratio is met),
wherein the water-soluble organic solvent includes a solvent (S-1, Table 2, K2, propylene glycol) having a boiling point of 190°C or less (note that the boiling point of propylene glycol is 188°C), and
a content of the solvent (S-1) relative to a total amount of the water-soluble organic solvent is 50 mass% or more (Note that propylene glycol meets the limitation), and
the ink jet ink does not include a microcapsule including a shell formed of a crosslinked polymer and a core including a polymerizable monomer ([0049]).
Umebayashi does not expressly teach wherein the content of the solvent is 60 mass% or more. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to obtain optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches an ink with a two-solvent system wherein each of the solvents is included at 50%, while the invention is directed to an ink with only a single solvent, namely propylene glycol. Examiner maintains this tweak of the solvent contents would have been arrived at through routine experimentation and thus does not add patentably weight to the claim.
Nonetheless, Okuda is now incorporated for a teaching of inks including exclusively propylene glycol as a solvent or a mix of propylene glycol and glycerin (Okuda, see Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a single solvent such as propylene glycol, as disclosed by Okuda, instead of a two-system, as disclosed by Umebayashi, because doing so would amount to a simple substitution of one known solvent composition for another to obtain predictable results.
Additionally, the claim requires a range of HSP distances, but the range is not inventive since all other claimed conditions are present in the prior art. That is, the claimed HSP range is another range that would have been arrived at by routing experimentation and thus is not patentable.
Moreover, Examiner maintains that waster-soluble organic solvent propylene glycol and polymerizable monomer tricyclodecanedimethanol diacrylate, as presently claimed and disclosed by Umebayashi, necessarily meet the HSP distance limitation, and thus the limitation is inherent within Umebayashi.
For purposes of all claims with ranges, MPEP 2144.05 are being applied in the same manner as above.
Regarding claim 2, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the Ws/Wm ratio is 2.0 to 6.0 (see Table 2, Note that the ratio is about 4.3).
Regarding claim 3, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein AHSP(s-p), which is an HSP distance between the water-soluble organic solvent and the polymer P, is 8.0 MPa supra 0.5 to 16.0 MPa supra 0.5 (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 4, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein, when a mass content of the water-soluble organic solvent is defined as Ws and a mass content of the polymer P is defined as Wp, a Ws/Wp ratio is 1.0 to 6.0 (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 5, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the polymer P includes a bond U being at least one of a urethane bond or a urea bond ([0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the polymer P has a glass transition temperature of 80°C or less (Note that the urethane polymer necessarily has a glass transition temperature of less than 80°C).
Regarding claim 7, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the polymer P has a weight-average molecular weight of 10000 to 50000 (Note that this is the case).
Regarding claim 8, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the polymer P includes a chain polymer ([0365]).
Regarding claim 9, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the polymerizable monomer M includes a monomer (M-1) having a viscosity at 25°C of 10 mPa-s to 150 mPa's, and a content of the monomer (M-1) relative to a total amount of the polymerizable monomer M is 50 mass% or more (see claim 1 rejection, Note that all components are the same. Thus, it is inherent within Umebayashi that the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 14, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1. Okuda teaches wherein a two-system of propylene glycol and glycerin is an obvious variant of a one-solvent system simply containing propylene glycol. Umebayashi teaches wherein a solvent system is included at 9.4 mass % of the total amount of the ink. Thus, while the combination does not expressly teach wherein a content of the water-soluble organic solvent (S-1) relative to a total amount of the ink jet ink is 10 mass % to 35 mass %. As detailed above, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to obtain optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches an ink with 9.4 mass % solvents while the invention requires 10 mass % solvents. Examiner maintains that the claimed range was a simple optimization of the quantities disclosed by Umebayashi.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi in view of Okuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunita (2006/0268083).
Regarding claim 11, Umebayashi in view of Okuda teaches the ink jet recording method. Umebayashi in view of Okuda does not teach a step of applying, onto a substrate, the ink jet ink according to claim 1 by an ink jet process; and a step of irradiating the ink jet ink having been applied onto the substrate, with an actinic energy ray, wherein a time from landing of the ink jet ink onto the substrate to starting of the irradiation with the actinic energy ray is 1.00 second or less. Kunita teaches this (Kunita, [0166]). It would have been obvious to apply the ink disclosed by Umebayashi in view of Okuda with the method disclosed by Kunita because doing so would amount to combining a known ink with a known ink deposition method to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the composition of the liquid, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights