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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 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 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 20, and 22-24 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. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
The term “high transfer efficiency applicator” in claims 1, 5, 20, and 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any applicator comprising one or more nozzles and configured to apply a coating composition to a specific substrate in a specific pattern, and exerting a yield stress on the aqueous coating composition of from 1 to 10 Pa will meet the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 1, “yield stress is a property of a material, and not a measurement of a force exerted on a material. While the stress exerted on the coating composition can be greater than, equal to, or less than the yield stress of the composition, a yield stress cannot be exerted on the aqueous coating composition as required by the present claim language. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as requiring an exerted stress.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hees (US 20040249088) in view of Kawaguchi (US20050117009), Yang (Yang, High Viscosity Jetting System for 3D Reactive Inkjet Printing, 24th Annu. Int. Solid Free. Fabr. Symp. – an Addit. Manuf. Conf., University of Texas, Austin, Texas (2013), pg. 505-513), and Khan (Khan, Pigment Ink Formulation, Tests and Test Methods for Pigmented Textile Inks, Chemistry and Materials Research, Vol. 8, No. 8, 2016 pg. 78-86).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 8, and 20, Hees teaches a method of forming a coating layer on at least a portion of a substrate comprising: applying an aqueous coating composition to a substrate using an applicator ([0187], [0230]); wherein the aqueous coating composition comprises a film-forming polymer and a polymer with reactive functional groups ([0230]); wherein the aqueous coating composition has a viscosity of 6.5 Pa*s ([0230]) for screen printing applications ([0232]). Hees teaches viscosities of 1-20 mPa*s for ink jet printing applications ([0153]). Hees teaches measuring viscosity with a rotary viscometer from Haake in accordance with German standard specification DIN 53019-1 ([0153]).
Hees does not explicitly teach a crosslinked polymer microparticle; however, Kawaguchi teaches crosslinked polymer microparticles ([0019]) as a white pigment in inkjet compositions for textile printing ([0009]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hees to include polymer microparticles, as taught in Kaswaguchi, because they are known pigments in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the composition of Hees with a pigment as taught in Kaswaguchi.
Hees recognizes coating viscosity being a result effective variable which influences the ability to use a printing application process. Hees is silent as to the viscosity at a shear stress of 1 Pa when measured using a rheometer equipped with a 50-millimeter parallel plate-plate fixture at 250C and a pressure of 101.3 kPa (1 atm) and keeping a plate-plate distance fixed at 0.2mm. Hees is also silent as to the viscosity at a shear stress of 10 Pa when measured as a function of shear stress over a stress range from 0.05 Pa to 500 Pa with a point spacing of 7 points per decade and a rheology profile defined as the ratio of the viscosity at a shear stress of 1 Pa to the viscosity at a shear stress of 10 Pa at 25°C and a pressure of 101.3 kPa (1 atm), using a rheometer equipped with a 50 millimeter parallel plate-plate fixture with temperature-control and keeping a plate-plate distance fixed at 0.2mm; however, Yang teaches an ink jet printing system suitable for application of inks having viscosities in the range of 20 to 100000 cP (Conclusion). Yang teaches the printing system allows for decreased solvent use and prevents problems identified by traditional inkjet printing (Introduction). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Hees to include printing as suggested by Yang, for the benefit of decreased solvent use and preventing problems of traditional inkjet printing. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the viscosity of the composition of Hees, as suggested by Hees and Yang, in order to achieve a composition suitable for the printing process with a minimal amount of solvent and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed viscosity.
Yang teaches the high transfer efficiency applicator comprises a valve jet applicator having one or more nozzles (Inkjet printing system), each of which expels the coating composition in the form of a coherent coating composition jet (Patterning), wherein each nozzle expels the aqueous coating composition to form a jet having the form of a line segment (Droplet forming and Patterning).
Yang teaches a nozzle orifice that expels the coating composition as a droplet or jet (Jetting process study). The stress required to flow the material from the nozzle of Yang would necessarily be greater than or equal to the yield stress of the material. The combined references are silent as to the stress applied by the nozzle orifice and the rheology profile of the coating composition; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine suitable properties. Khan teaches preparation of pigmented textile inks wherein the rheology modifier is selected for control of the rheology profile, which includes the yield stress and the viscosity at different shear modes and rates (2.5 Rheology modifier selection). Kahn does not explicitly teach a yield stress of from 1 to 10 Pa or a minimum first derivative of the Log10 of the viscosity versus shear stress ranging from -0.1 to -5.0 mPa*s/mPa; however, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the selection of the rheology modifier and the rheology profile of the compositions of Yang, as suggested by Khan, in order to achieve the desired jetting and drop formation (2. Formation of pigment ink for textile) and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed rheology profile. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the selection of the rheology modifier and yield stress (correlating to the stress required to flow the material from the nozzle) of the compositions of Yang, as suggested by Kahn, in order to achieve the desired jetting and drop formation (2. Formation of pigment ink for textile) and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed stress.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Hees teaches a glycol ether swelling solvent ([0230]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang teaches a nozzle orifice that expels the coating composition as a droplet or jet (Jetting process study). The stress required to flow the material from the nozzle of Yang would necessarily be greater than or equal to the yield stress of the material.
Regarding Claim 22, Hees teaches a pigment ([0223]).
Regarding Claim 23, Hees teaches coated substrates, i.e. having a primer layer ([0163-0165]).
Regarding Claim 24, The combined references do not teach a clearcoat coating composition over at least a portion of the aqueous coating composition that has been applied to the substrate; however, Khan teaches printing binders over the printed images as a post-treatment for difficult substrates or applications which require extra durability (4. Optional pre- and post-treatments for pigmented digital textile printing). The post-treatment of Khan is understood to be a clear coating such that the underlayer printed image would be visible. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a top coating, as taught in Khan, for the benefit of extra durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Claim 1 has been amended to add definition to the term "high transfer efficiency applicator" as including one or more nozzles and configured to apply a coating composition to a specific substrate, in a specific pattern where the nozzles of the high transfer efficiency applicator include an orifice that exerts a yield stress on the aqueous coating composition of from 1 to 10 Pa. In response to applicant’s argument, the amendment does not clarify the “high transfer efficiency” term. It is not clear which transfer efficiency would be inside and outside of the claimed limitation. The term is not defined by the claim or the specification.
Applicant argues that the nozzles of the high transfer efficiency applicator include an orifice that exerts a yield stress on the aqueous coating composition of from 1 to 10 Pa and none of the cited prior art suggests or discloses an applicator having nozzles as claimed. In response to applicant’s argument, the claim is treated as requiring an exerted stress as discussed in the Section 112 rejection above. Yang teaches a nozzle orifice that expels the coating composition as a droplet or jet (Jetting process study). The stress required to flow the material from the nozzle of Yang would necessarily be greater than or equal to the yield stress of the material. Khan suggests optimization of the yield stress and it would have been obvious to optimize the selection of the rheology modifier and yield stress (correlating to the stress required to flow the material from the nozzle) of the compositions of Yang, as suggested by Kahn, in order to achieve the desired jetting and drop formation (2. Formation of pigment ink for textile) and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed stress.
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights