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) 1-7, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi et al. (2018/0320071) in view of Hayashi et al. (2017/0335124) and Okuda et al. (2019/0092958).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 15, 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 teach wherein the polymer P urethane has a weight-average molecular weight of 10000 to 50000. Hayashi teaches wherein a urethane polymer P has such a weight-average molecular weight (Hayashi, [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a urethane with the weight-average molecular weight of that disclosed by Hayashi as the urethane of Umebayashi because doing so would amount to ascribing a known range of weight-average molecular weights to the urethane of Umebayashi. That is, because Umebayashi is silent as to the weight-average molecular weight of its urethane polymer, it would have been obvious to look to Hayashi for such information.
Umebayashi in view of Hayashi 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 in view of Hayashi, 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 in view of Hayashi.
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 Hayashi and Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the Ws/Wm ratio is 2.0 to 6.0 (Umebayashi, see Table 2, Note that the ratio is about 4.3).
Regarding claim 3, Umebayashi in view of Hayashi and 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 Hayashi and 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 Hayashi and 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 (Umebayashi, [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Umebayashi in view of Hayashi and Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the polymer P has a glass transition temperature of 80°C or less (Umebayashi, Note that the urethane polymer necessarily has a glass transition temperature of less than 80°C).
Regarding claim 8, Umebayashi in view of Hayashi and Okuda teaches the ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the polymer P includes a chain polymer (Umebayashi, [0365]).
Regarding claim 9, Umebayashi in view of Hayashi and 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 Hayashi and 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 Hayashi and Okuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunita (2006/0268083).
Regarding claim 11, Umebayashi in view of Hayashi and Okuda teaches the ink jet recording method. Umebayashi in view of Hayashi and 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 Hayashi and 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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) 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 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