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) 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (2020/0291212) in view of Oyanagi et al. (2013/0222468) and Asai et al. (2022/0243081).
Regarding claim 11, Harada teaches a recording method which comprising:
jetting an ink jet ink composition from an ink jet head to make the ink jet ink compoisition adhere to a recording medium, wherein the ink jet ink composition is a solvent-based ink that includes:
a metal pigment ([0216]);
a polyoxyalkylene amine compound ([0177]); and
an organic solvent ([0218]),
wherein the metal pigment is a metal particle ([0216]),
the polyoxyalkylene amine compound includes a compound represented by Formula (3) ([0177], Note that Surfonamine L series is the same polyoxyalkylene amine compound elected by Applicant in Example 3 for examination and meets all of the Formula 3 limitations),
wherein the metal particles are dispersed in the ink jet ink composition by the polyoxyalkylene amine compound ([0177]).
Harada does not teach wherein a total content of the organic solvent contained in the ink jet ink composition is 60% by mass or greater with respect to a total amount of the ink jet ink composition. Oyanagi teaches a pigment ink containing a lactone-based solvent and wherein all solvent present in the ink meet the mass limitation (Oyanagi, [0054], [0126], see Example 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include solvent in the amount disclosed by Oyanagi in the ink disclosed by Harada because doing so would amount to combining a known solvent range with a known type of ink to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Harada does not go into specifics about its solvent content, it would have been obvious to look to Oyanagi for such a solvent content range. Further, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to obtain optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation.
Harada in view of Oyanagi does not teach wherein water is included at 0.5% by mass or less and a surface treatment agent for the metal pigment or wherein the metal pigment has a volume average particle diameter D50 of 0.2 to 1 micrometer 5 to 30 nm where the volume average particle diameter D50 is measured by using a laser diffraction scattering type particle side distribution measuring device and the average thickness is measured by using an atomic force microscope. Asai teaches using a surface treatment agent with an n-octadecyl group for an metal pigment (Asai, [0115], [0018], [0203], [0049]-[0054], [0056]-[0057]). It would have been obvious to use a surface treatment agent of the type disclosed by Asai on the pigment disclosed by Harada because doing so would allow for surface modification of the pigment, thereby allowing for the pigment to have different characteristics. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use metallic pigment particles with average thickness disclosed by Asai in the formulation disclosed by Harada because doing so would amount to combining a known pigment with a known inks set to obtain predictable results. That is, because Harada does not go into detail about the specifics of its metal pigment particles, it would have been obvious to look to Asai for such specifics.
Note that despite the fact that Asai teaches the measuring techniques claimed, the invention is directed to an ink composition, and thus any ink composition with metal pigment particles meeting the claimed diameter and thickness limitations would be valid prior art, regardless of what kinds of measuring devices were used to obtain the diameter and thickness.
Regarding the claimed chemical formulas, compounds with an n-octadecyl group meet the claimed limitations directed to Formulas 1 and 2.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.04, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, even if Asai’s average thickness did not read on the claimed invention, it could be said that the claimed range of thicknesses has been arrived at by routine experimentation and thus does not add patentable weight to the claim. This rationale applies to all claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 2, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1. Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai does not expressly teach wherein a content of the compound represented by Formula (3) is 20% by mass or greater and 80% by mass or less with respect to 100% by mass of a total mass of the metal particle. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the pigment, the amine compound, the solvent and the surface treatment agent are all disclosed by Harada in view of Asai, and a content range of the amine compound is now claimed, but the range is not inventive and thus does not add patentable weight to the claims.
Regarding claim 3, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1. Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai does not teach wherein the metal pigment has a volume average particle diameter D50 of 0.5 pum or less. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the pigment, the amine compound, the solvent and the surface treatment agent are all disclosed by Harada in view of Asai, average particle diameter of the pigment is now claimed, but the range is not inventive and thus does not add patentable weight to the claims.
Regarding claim 4, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, wherein the metal pigment has a scaly shape (Note that “scaly shape” has not been defined, and the aluminum pigment disclosed by Harada is being considered to have such a scaly shape. Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai does not teach wherein an average thickness of the metal pigment is 30 nm or less. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the pigment, the amine compound, the solvent and the surface treatment agent are all disclosed by Harada in view of Asai, and a average thickness of the pigment is now claimed, but the range is not inventive and thus does not add patentable weight to the claims.
Regarding claim 5, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1. Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai does not expressly teach wherein a content of an organic solvent having an SP value of 26 MPal/?2 or less is 90% by mass or greater with respect to 100% by mass of a total mass of the organic solvent. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the pigment, the amine compound, the solvent and the surface treatment agent are all disclosed by Harada in view of Asai, and a content range of the organic solvent is now claimed, but the range is not inventive and thus does not add patentable weight to the claims.
Regarding claim 6, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is selected from a glycol ether-based organic solvent and a lactone-based organic solvent ([0218]).
Regarding claim 7, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, wherein a content of the organic solvent is 50% by mass or greater with respect to a total amount of the ink jet ink composition (Oyanagi, Table 2).
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the pigment, the amine compound, the solvent and the surface treatment agent are all disclosed by Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai, and a content range of the organic solvent is now claimed, but the range is not inventive and thus does not add patentable weight to the claims.
Regarding claim 8, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, wherein R! and R2? represent an unsubstituted hydrocarbon group (see claim rejection, Note that the components in the prior art are exactly the same as those claimed and thus share the same chemical makeups).
Regarding claim 9, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, wherein R1 and R2 represent a hydrocarbon group having 15 or more and 30 or less carbon atoms (see claim rejection, Note that the components in the prior art are exactly the same as those claimed and thus share the same chemical makeups).
Regarding claim 10, Harada in view of Oyanagi and Asai teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, wherein the metal particle consists of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Harada, [0216]).
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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