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 .
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 71-72 and 108 is 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.
Claim 71 recites the limitation “said printable ink formulation” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 71 depends from claim 1 which does not recite a printable ink formulation. It is noted that claim 2 introduces a printable ink formulation. Examiner suggests amending claim 71 to depend from claim 2 to cure the issue.
Claim 72 is rejected for its dependence on claim 71.
Claim 108 recites the limitation "the range" in the composition of claim 2, said printable ink formulation comprising a viscosity in the range of between about 25 cP and about 125 cP. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 86, 92, 100, 113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klofta et al. (US20050199177).
With respect to claim 1, Klofta et al. teaches a composition comprising ([0008]): a colorant which undergoes a visible color change upon exposure to a wetness threshold ([0093] the change of the colorant from its initial color state to its final color state is visible within a short time after the wetness indicator composition is contacted with a liquid ) and a leaching inhibitor ([0034] The matrix, including both the first and second binding agents is typically employed in compositions at levels which are effective at immobilizing the colorant); wherein, following application to a substrate, said colorant resists leaching from said substrate by being chemically bound to said leaching inhibitor ([0032] The leaching inhibition is particularly beneficial in locking the colorant within the matrix on a substrate and [0040] the first binding agent immobilizes the colorant when the colorant is in its initial color state by polar covalent bonding,.).
With respect to claim 2, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1 (see above). Klofta et al. further teaches the composition of claim 1, said colorant formulated into a printable ink formulation configured for printing on said substrate [0091].
With respect to claim 4, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 2 (see above).
Klofta et al. further teaches said printable ink formulation in a liquid state at room temperature ([0091] it would be inherent for the temperature of the printable ink formulation to be at room temperature as the temperature of the liquid was not specified as hot, cold or numerical temperature). MPEP 2112 IV.
With respect to claim 86, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1 (see above). Klofta et al further teaches a leaching inhibitor functions to immobilize said colorant (([0034] The matrix, including both the first and second binding agents is typically employed in compositions at levels which are effective at immobilizing the colorant) relative to substrate when said colorant is chemically bound to leaching inhibitor ([0032] The leaching inhibition is particularly beneficial in locking the colorant within the matrix on a substrate [0040] first binding agent immobilizes the colorant when the colorant is in its initial color state by polar covalent bonding and [0049] the second binding agent immobilizes the colorant when the colorant is in its final color state by one or more selected from the group consisting of covalent bonding).
With respect to claim 92, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 86 (see above). Klofta et al further teaches a leaching inhibitor comprises a quaternary ammonium compound ([0031] The compositions of the present invention comprise a matrix comprising first and second binding agents, both of which are illustrated in more detail herein. The matrix acts to hold the colorant in place before, during and after contact with liquid. The matrix of the present invention is preferably highly resistant to colorant leaching and [0043] The second binding agent may be any material which immobilizes the colorant when the colorant is in its final color state [0044] In one embodiment of the present invention the second binding agents may be selected from, but are not limited to: quaternary ammonium compounds).
With respect to claim 100, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 92 (see above). Klofta et al. further teaches wherein said quaternary ammonium compound and said colorant comprise a similar molecular weight. ([0025] bromocresol green which has a molecular weight of 698.01 g/mol and [0045] distearyldimethylammonium which has a molecular weight if 586.46 g/mol. The specification of the application specifies in accordance with the present invention, as to particular embodiments, quaternary ammonium compounds which may be useful with the present composition can have a molecular weight similar to the molecular weight of the colorant. As to particular embodiments, quaternary ammonium compounds which may be useful with the present composition can have a molecular weight which is not greater than about 30 percent different (whether 30% less or 30% more) from the molecular weight of the colorant).
With respect to claim 113, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 2 (see above). Klofta et al. further teaches said printable ink formulation further comprising a viscosity increaser; wherein said viscosity increaser comprises silica. ([0091] The wetness indicator may be applied to a substrate via any means of liquid or semi-liquid application as known in the art, including, but not limited to, slot coating, spraying, gravure printing, ink jet printing, and digital printing. [0060] In one optional embodiment of the present invention, the wetness indicator composition may optionally comprise a viscosity modifier. Suitable viscosity modifiers, include, but are not limited to: silicas and/or derivatized silicas).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 25, 41, 71,72, 127, 128, 129 and 130 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al. (20050199177).
With respect to claim 25, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 2 (see above). Kofta fails to explicitly teach a printable ink formulation embodiment comprising a solvent. Klofta et al. further teaches the wetness indicator may be applied to a substrate via any means of liquid or semi-liquid application as known in the art, including, but not limited to, slot coating, spraying, gravure printing, ink jet printing, and digital printing [0091]. Klofta et al. also teaches the wetness indicator composition comprising solvents, such as, water, alcohols, polyols, such as, propylene glycol, and the like; and combinations thereof [0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wetness indicator that can be applied for ink jet printing taught by Klofta et al. to a printable ink formulation further comprising a solvent. The claimed method requires to printable ink formulation further comprising a solvent. Because Klofta et al. wetness indicator composition can be applied as a for inkjet printing , a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try because ordinarily skilled artisans would have predicted that a printable ink formulation further comprising a solvent would result in a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143 (I)(E)
With respect to claim 41, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 25 (see above). Kofta fails to explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the printable ink formulation does not include a solvent which is solid or meltable at room temperature. Klofta et al. further teaches the wetness indicator may be applied to a substrate via any means of liquid or semi-liquid application as known in the art, including, but not limited to, slot coating, spraying, gravure printing, ink jet printing, and digital printing [0091]. The wetness indicator compositions of the present invention may optionally comprise other optional adjunct ingredients like solvents such as water, alcohols, polyols, such as, propylene glycol, and the like; and combinations thereof.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wetness indicator that can be applied for ink jet printing taught by Klofta et al. to wherein said printable ink formulation does not include a solvent which is solid or meltable at room temperature. The claimed method requires wherein said printable ink formulation does not include a solvent which is solid or meltable at room temperature. Because Klofta et al. wetness indicator composition can be applied as a for inkjet printing , a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try because ordinarily skilled artisans would have predicted that wherein said printable ink formulation does not include a solvent which is solid or meltable at room temperature, would result in a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143 (I)(E)
With respect to claim 71, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1 (see above). Kofta fails to explicitly teach an embodiment wherein a printable ink formulation is configured as a urine indicator. Klofta et al further teaches a wetness indicator composition that can be applied for inkjet printing [0091]. Klofta et al. further teaches the wetness indicating composition may contain one colorant that turns blue and another that turns red upon contact with urine [0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wetness indicator that can be applied for ink jet printing taught by Klofta et al. to a said printable ink formulation configured as a urine indicator. The claimed method requires to printable ink formulation further comprising a solvent. Because Klofta et al. wetness indicator composition can be applied as said printable ink formulation configured as a urine indicator, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try because ordinarily skilled artisans would have predicted that said printable ink formulation configured as a urine indicator ,would result in a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143 (I)(E)
With respect to claim 72, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 71 (see above). Klofta et al. further teaches [0024] In the wetness indicator compositions of the present invention the final color state is associated with a second state of the wetness indicator composition. This second state of the wetness indicator composition includes, but is not limited to: a specific pH or pH range; absence or presence of a specific compound or compounds [0024]. Klofta et al. further teaches the colorant is a pH indicator [0025].
With respect to claim 127, Klofta et al. teaches a composition comprising: a colorant which undergoes a visible color change upon exposure to a wetness threshold ([0022]), but fails to teach the particular ranges of a colorant in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight of said composition ([0029]); a leaching inhibitor ([0031], in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight of said composition ([0034]); and a solvent ([0081]).
The claimed method requires a colorant in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight of said composition; a leaching inhibitor in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight of said composition, which overlaps with the range of Klofta et al. because Klofta et al. teaches the colorant is typically employed in compositions at levels which are effective at indicating the presence of a liquid, preferably from about 0.001% to about 5% [0029] and including both the first and second binding agents is typically employed in compositions at levels which are effective at immobilizing the colorant, preferably from about 5% to about 95% [0034]. Because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by Klofta et al., a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try because ordinarily skilled artisans would have predicted that a colorant in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight of said composition, would result in a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2144.05(I). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight percentage of colorant (0.001% to about 5%) and leaching inhibitor (about 5% to about 95%) taught by Klofta et al. to a colorant in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight and a leaching inhibitor in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight as claimed by the invention.
With respect to claim 128, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 127 (see above). Klofta et al. teaches the further comprising a resin ([0031] a matrix that contains first and second binding agents that prevent leaching, [0036] examples of the first binding agents including rosin esters, polymerized rosins, styrenated terpenes, polyterpene resins, [0037] with rosins being resin left after distilling turpentine, and second binding agents including cationic exchange resins; anionic exchange resins [0044]) but fails to teach the particular range in an amount of about 10% to about 30% by weight of said composition. However, Kofta et al. teaches at para. [0041] first binding agent in the amount of 4% to about 90% and a second binding agent of 0.5% to about 20% [0052].
The claimed method requires a resin in an amount of about 10% to about 30% by weight of said composition which overlaps with the range of Klofta et al. because Klofta et al. teaches the first binding agents [0037] and second binding agents [0044] within the matrix, preferably at 5% to about 95%. More specifically, the first binding agent in the amount of 4% to about 90% and a second binding agent of 0.5% to about 20% [0052]. Because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by Klofta et al., a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try because ordinarily skilled artisans would have predicted that a resin in an amount of about 10% to about 30% by weight of said composition, would result in a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2131.03 and 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first binding agent in the amount of 4% to about 90% and a second binding agent of 0.5% to about 20% [0052]. taught by Klofta et al. to a resin in an amount of about 10% to about 30% as claimed by the invention.
With respect to claim 129, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 128 (see above). Klofta et al. further teaches comprising an acid in an amount of about 2% to about 8% by weight of said composition ([0061] Acidic stabilizers which are particularly effective in stabilizing the wetness indicator formula to high humidities include, but are not limited to: organic acids, etc. [0062] employed in compositions from about 0.001% to about 30%).
The claimed method requires acid in an amount of about 2% to about 8% by weight of said composition, which overlaps with the range of Klofta et al. because Klofta et al. teaches an acid stabilizer [0060] and the stabilizer, when present is typically employed in compositions at levels which are effective at stabilizing the colorant, preferably from about 0.001% to about 30% [0062]. Because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try because ordinarily skilled artisans would have predicted that an acid in an amount of about 2% to about 8% by weight of said composition, would result in a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2131.03 and 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified an acid stabilizer [0060] and the stabilizer, when present is typically employed in compositions at levels which are effective at stabilizing the colorant, preferably from about 0.001% to about 30% taught by Klofta et al. to acid in an amount of about 2% to about 8% by weight as claimed by the invention.
With respect to claim 130, modified Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 129 (see above). Klofta et al. further teaches further comprising a viscosity modifier in an amount of about 3% to about 15% by weight of said composition (a viscosity modifier [0068] employed in compositions from about 0.001% to about 50% [0069]).
The claimed method requires a viscosity modifier in an amount of about 3% to about 15% by weight of said composition, which overlaps with the range of Klofta et al. because Klofta et al. teaches a viscosity modifier [0068] employed in compositions from about 0.001% to about 50% [0069]. Because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try because ordinarily skilled artisans would have predicted that wherein said a viscosity modifier in an amount of about 3% to about 15% to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2131.03 and 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a viscosity modifier [0068] employed in compositions from about 0.001% to about 50% [0069] taught by Klofta et al. to a viscosity modifier in an amount of about 3% to about 15% by weight of said composition as claimed by the invention.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Klofta et al. (20050199177) and (Pub "628”) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (20110012954).
With respect to claim 29, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 25 (see above)
Klofta et al. teaches that the wetness indicator composition can include other adjuncts such as solvents like water, alcohols, polyols such as propylene glycol and the like and combinations thereof ([0081]). Klofta et al. further teaches a solvent of about 0.001% to about 5% being used in the wetness indicator composition ([0082]).
However, Klofta et al. did not teach wherein said solvent comprises a volatile solvent.
Pub "628”teaches a wetness composition that includes a colorant ([0016]) and binding matrix that chemically locks the leaching inhibitor into the substrate ([0028]). Pub "628” teaches liquid activated colorants such as bromophenol blue, bromochlorophenol blue, bromocresol green and bromocresol purple ([0022]).
Pub "628”) further teaches the wetness indicator that includes a solvent from about 0.001% to about 50% [0051] such as water, glycols and alcohols. Pub "628” specifically teaches preferred alcohol solvents such as iso-propyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol, ethanol, and methanol ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the alcohol solvent taught by Klofta et al. to a volatile alcohol solvent such as methanol as taught by Pub "628”. The skilled artisan would have expected success in substituting Pub "628” iso-propyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol, ethanol, and methanol exemplified in Klofta et al. alcohol solvent because Pub "628” teaches volatile alcohols for a preferred composition ([0051]) and Brown et al. (20110012954) teaches that iso-propyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol, ethanol, and methanol are fast solvents [0009] and can recover nozzles after 1-2 images when inkjet printing which leads to a good quality image [0038]. MPEP 2143 (I)(B) The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the substitution because ordinarily skilled artisans would have predicted that wherein said solvent comprises a volatile solvent would increase a legible image for inkjet printing.
With respect to claim 30, Modified Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 29 (see above)( Pub "628, [0051]).
Modified Klofta et al. teaches that the wetness indicator composition can include other adjuncts such as aqueous solvents such as water, alcohols, polyols such as propylene glycol and the like and combinations thereof ([0081]). Modified Klofta et al. specifically teaches preferred alcohol solvents such as iso-propyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol, ethanol, and methanol ([0051]).
However, modified Klofta et al. does not teach wherein at least a portion of said volatile solvent evaporates upon said printing.
Brown et al. teaches a solvent based inkjet formulation that includes a colorant, a resin to increase adhesion and an organic solvent [0007]. Brown teaches a fast organic solvent, intermediate and slow solvent for the formulation [0009]. Brown et al. teaches an organic solvent selected from the group consisting of a glycol ether, a glycol ether acetate, an alcohol [0027].
Brown et al. further teaches methanol, ethanol, propanol, iso-propanol to be fast solvents [0045]. Brown et al. teaches propylene glycol ethers and dihydric alcohols to be intermediate solvents [0047]. Brown et al. teaches transferring ink onto a substrate [0028]. In the case of inks that utilize fast evaporating solvents, upon contacting a substrate, which is typically non-porous and at room temperature, a solvent in the liquid ink evaporates and a film forms on the substrate [0080].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the alcohol solvent taught by Klofta et al. to a fast solvent that evaporates and a film forms on the substrate upon contacting a substrate as taught by Brown et al. The person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting a solvent for wetness indicator that can be used for inkjet printing because Klofta et al. teaches using an alcohol solvent and Brown et al. identifies preferred fast solvents as alcohol solvents such as iso-propyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol, ethanol, and methanol. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a fast solvent in Brown et al. because fast solvents evaporate and form a film upon contacting the substrate [0080] and achieve suitable decap times and a fast-drying time when the ink is printed on the substrate, which would allow for a good quality image [0038] [0086] and [0088]. MPEP 2143 (I)(G)
Claim 96 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al. (20050199177) as applied to claim 86 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (20200299513 A1)
With respect to claim 96, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 86 (see above) ([0022],[0034], [0031], [0032], [0040] [0049]).
Klofta et al. teaches a wetness composition that includes a leaching inhibitor ([0031]) functions to immobilize colorant relative to substrate when colorant is chemically bound to said leaching inhibitor ([0032] [0040] and [0049]).
Klofta et al. further teaches a first and a second binding agent that immobilize the colorant (leaching inhibitor) [0034]. Klofta et al. teaches the second binding agent being a quaternary ammonium compounds such as tetramethylammonium chloride [0044]. Klofta et al. further teaches the anion on the quaternary compound to be methyl sulfate and nitrite [0047].
However, Klofta et al does not teach wherein the molar ratio of said leaching inhibitor: said colorant is between about 1:1 and about 4:1.
Chang et al. teaches a color composition that consists of a colorant and a solvent [0005] such as methanol, ethanol and propyl glycol [0096] for printing a layer of film onto a surface of the article [0006]. Chang et al. teaches the color composition can be applied to printing equipment [0005] and polymeric material [0006]. Chang et al. teaches a colorant such as an anionic dye, a cationic dye and an acid dye [0099]. Acid dyes such as Acid Yellow 1, 17, 23, 25 and 34 to be examples of the acid dyes [0100].
Chang et al. teaches the dye to form a complex with the quaternary ammonium salt to use as a color composition of a printed layer [0102]. Chang et al. teaches the quaternary ammonium compound to be a tetraalkylammonium compound where the alkyl” group can include C1 to C10 alkyl groups that can create a complexed dye for printing [0102]. Chang et al. teaches the color composition to have a molar ratio of acid dye to quaternary ammonium compound from about 4:1 to 1:4 [0102]. Chang et al. teaches the color composition being applied to an article where it can be used to a soft thermoplastic polymeric material [0007], cushioning elements of sole, apparel [0110] print articles [0009] and jet printing [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the molar ratio of the quaternary ammonium compound to colorant by Klofta et al. to a colorant to quaternary ammonium compound to 1:1 and about 4:1 as taught by Chang et al. The person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the molar ratio of the quaternary ammonium compound to colorant because Klofta et al. contemplates multiple counterions for amlodipine and Chang et al identifies the color composition to have a molar ratio of acid dye to quaternary ammonium compound from about 4:1 to 1:4 a color composition generally. MPEP 2143 (I)(G) The skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the molar ratio of said leaching inhibitor: said colorant is between about 1:1 and about 4:1 from the list in Chang et al. because the formulation with a 1:1 colorant to leaching inhibitor led to acceptable dry crock and wet crock while also having acceptably long printhead lifetimes of over 3 months [0247].
Claim 108 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al. (20050199177) as applied to claim 2 above, , in further view of Brown et al. (20110012954) and further in view of Fujii. (US20210283937 A1).
With respect to claim 108, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 2 (see above). ([0022], [0034] [0032] [0040] [0091])
Klofta et al. teaches a wetness indicator formulation that can be applied to the substrate for ink jet printing being [0091] and/or a diaper [0088] that includes a colorant [0022]. Klofta et al. teaches a viscosity modifier [0060].
However, Klofta et al. does not specifically teach said printable ink formulation comprising a viscosity in the range of between about 25 cP and about 125 cP.
Brown et al. teaches a solvent based inkjet formulation that includes a colorant, a resin to increase adhesion and an organic solvent [0007]. Brown et al. teaches a fast organic solvent, intermediate and slow solvent for the formulation [0009] that can be used to transfer ink onto a substrate [0028]. Brown et al. teaches inkjet printing by the ejection of inks from an inkjet printer onto a substrate [0003 and 0039]. Brown et al. further teaches an inkjet ink with a viscosity of from about 1 centipoise to about 25 centipoise [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viscosity modifiers taught by Klofta et al. to using viscosity modifiers that will result in the viscosity of the wetness indicator composition being about 1 centipoise to about 25 centipoise [0025].as taught by Brown et al.. The person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in formulating the wetness indicator because Klofta et al. teaches including a viscosity modifier and Brown et al. identifies that adjusting viscosity could influence utilization for inkjet printing generally [0077]. MPEP 2143 (I)(G) The skilled artisan would have been motivated to select said printable ink formulation comprising a viscosity in the range of about 1 centipoise to about 25 centipoise [0025].in Brown et al. because for ejection of the ink to be optimal from a nozzle [0089].
Claim 114 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al. (20050199177) as applied to claim 113 above, and further in view of Yoshinosuke (WO2016035787A1).
With respect to claim 114, Klofta et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 113 (see above). ([0091] and [0060])
Klofta et al. teaches a wetness indicator formulation that can be applied to the substrate for ink jet printing being [0091] that includes a colorant (0022) with mass percent of about 0.001% to about 5% as a liquid [0029] and leaching inhibitor that prevents the colorant from leaking through the substrate [0032], [0036] and [0042]. Klofta et al. teaches that the wetness indicator composition can include other adjuncts such as aqueous solvents such as water, alcohols, polyols such as propylene glycol and the like and combinations thereof ([0081]). Klofta et al. further teaches a viscosity modifier that can include a polymeric thickener such as silicas and/or derivatized silicas [0074].
However, Klofta et al. does not specifically teach wherein said viscosity increaser comprises fumed silica.
Yoshinosuke teaches a pigment composition for ink jet printing ([Title and Page 2, paragraph starting with “the present invention relates to a pigment dispersion composition for ink jet printing”. Yoshinosuke further teaches the pigment dispersion being applied to color lock paper when evaluating the optical density (Page 14,, paragraph starting with “The obtained aqueous”.
Yoshinosuke teaches a pigment that are dispersed in water or a water-solvent organic solvent or alcohols (Page 7, paragraph starting with “The aqueous solvent”). Yoshinosuke further teaches water-solvent organic solvents such as glycols like propylene glycol and polypropylene glycol (Page 7, paragraph starting with “ In addition, a water-soluble organic”)). Yoshinosuke further teaches using a fumed silica which increases the viscosity of the pigment composition (Page 3, paragraph starting with “The reason why the”). Yoshinosuke teaches the pigment concentration being 1% to 30% by mass (Page 10, paragraph starting with “It is preferable to mix”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viscosity modifier such as silica taught by Klofta et al. to using viscosity modifiers that contain fumed silica as taught by Yoshinosuke. The person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in formulating the wetness indicator/ inkjet printing formulation because Klofta et al. teaches using silica and/or derived silica as a viscosity modifier and Yoshinosuke identifies the presence of silica increases the surface area of the pigment generally. MPEP 2143 (I)(G) The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use fumed silica in Yoshinosuke because fumed silica is characterized by being indefinite, interaction between the pigment and silica is likely to occur during drying, resulting in "viscosity of the dispersion" and "between the increasing. (Page 3, paragraph starting with “The reason why the”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAFIYA JAMILIA BEST whose telephone number is (571)272-9293. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/S.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758