DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is responsive to Claim set filed 04/21/2023 and Response to Restriction filed 03/12/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Elected claims 1-17 are under consideration in this Office Action.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-17 are rejected for reasons set forth below.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no adequate reasons were address on the anticipation of JP2008150535 A. This is not found persuasive because reasons are explained below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (JP2008150535 A).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Sato teaches a water-based ink for inkjet recording comprising a water insoluble crosslinked polymer particles containing a colorant (claim 8 and [0011]). Attention is drawn to Example 2 ([0053]), wherein Sato discloses an ink composition comprising crosslinked polymer particles containing pigments, organic solvents, such as glycerin and triethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and water ([0053] and [0051]). The crosslinked polymer is obtained by polymerization of methacrylic acid and other monomers (table 1), following by neutralization with NaOH and ammonia and crosslinking ([0053]). According to the Written Opinion of International Search Authority, the acid value of the crosslinked polymer is 81 mg KOH/g; the estimated Na+ is 57.7 mol.% and the estimated ammonia is 104.6 mol.% on the basis of a whole molar amount of the methacrylic groups of the crosslinked polymer. Therfore, the total content of Na+ and ammonia is 162.3 mol.% on the basis of a whole molar amount of the methacrylic groups of the crosslinked polymer.
Regarding Claim 3, Sato teaches the crosslinking agent is ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether (table 2). If the translation is not correct, Sato teaches the crosslinking agent can be trimethylolpropane polyglycidyl ether ([0028]) which is the preferred crosslinking agent of instant application.
Regarding Claim 4, Sato teaches the solvents contain triethylene glycol monobutyl ether ([0051]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sato teaches 100 parts of ink composition containing 16 parts of glycerin, 7 parts of triethylene glycol monobutyl ether ([0051]), therefore, the content of the organic solvents is 23% by mass based on the total mass of the ink.
Regarding Claim 6, Sato teaches the pigment is in the form of pigment-containing water-insoluble crosslinked polymer particles ([0051]).
Regarding Claim 8, Example 2 of Sato teaches the polymer obtained by subjecting a water-insoluble polymer comprising carboxy groups to a crosslinking reaction with a crosslinking agent.
Regarding Claims 9-12, Sato teaches the water-insoluble polymer is derived from a salt-forming group containing monomer (a) and a hydrophobic monomer (d) (lns182-190). The monomer mixture of Example 2 polymer has 13% by mass methacrylic acid and 47% by mass hydrophobic monomers (Table 1).
Regarding Claim 13, according to the Written Opinion of International Search Authority, the acid value of the polymer is 84.7 mg KOH/g before crosslinking and 81 mg KOH/g after crosslinking.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP2008150535 A), as applied to Claim 1 above.
The disclosure of Sato on Claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 7, although the content of the water-insoluble crosslinked polymer in the Example 2 ink composition is not falling within the claimed 2 wt.% to 15 wt.%, Sato teaches a crosslinked polymer particle containing a colorant ([0008]) and a water-based ink composition contains the content of the crosslinked polymer particles (the amount of solid content excluding the colorant) is preferably 0.5 to 20% by weight, therefore, Sato teaches the content of the water-insoluble crosslinked
polymer in the ink is from 0.5 wt.% to 20 wt.%, overlapping the claimed 2 wt.% to 15 wt. %.
Regarding Claim 14, Sato teaches the crosslinking rate of the crosslinked polymer particles being 1 to 80 mol.%, overlapping the claimed 20 mol% to 80 mol%.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Nagano et al. (WO2019013173 A1) as discussed at para.12 below.
Sato teaches the water-based ink comprising triethylene glycol monobutyl ether which is only one ethylene oxide longer than diethylene glycol monobutyl ether. Further, as discussed at para.12 below, Nagano teaches a water-based ink meeting the limitations of instant Claim 1, and Nagano teaches that the organic solvents may be selected from alkylene glycol monoalkyl ethers, such as ethylene glycol isopropyl ether, ethylene glycol propyl ether, diethylene glycol methyl ether, diethylene glycol isopropyl ether, diethylene glycol isobutyl ether and diethylene glycol butyl ether ([0125]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of instant application to use the alkylene glycol monoalkyl ethers taught by Nagano as an organic solvent for the ink of Sato.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Yoshida et al. (WO2019180847A1 citing US2020407580 A1 as English translation ).
The disclosure of Sato on Claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
The difference between Sato and instant Claims 16-17 is that Sato is silent on the ink composition comprising a pigment-free polymer particle.
However, Yoshida teaches an ink comprising water-based medium, a pigment dispersed with a polymer dispersant (a) (claim 1) wherein the water-based medium may contain water-soluble organic solvents ([0022]). Yoshida further teaches the polymer dispersant (a) is preferred vinyl-based polymer ([0040]) and the polymer dispersant (a) is preferred containing acid groups which are partially neutralized with a neutralizing agent ([0041]), wherein the examples of neutralizing agent include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide and ammonia ([0042]). Yoshida furthermore teaches the polymer dispersant (a) is partially crosslinked ([0143]). Therefore, Yoshida teaches an analogous art. Moreover, Yoshida teaches the ink comprising an emulsion of a polymer (b) in the form of a water dispersion of pigment free polymer particles ([0105]), wherein the polymer (b) is identical to the polymer dispersant (a) ([0107]) and the acid groups are preferred partially neutralized with a neutralizing agent, from the viewpoint of improving dispersion stability of the pigment as well as from the viewpoint of improving ejection stability and gloss of the ink ([0108]). In view of such benefits, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of instant application to incorporated partially neutralized pigment free polymer particles taught by Yoshida to the water-based ink of Sato to obtain a modified ink composition because Yoshida teaches the pigment free polymer particles improve dispersion stability of the pigment and improve ejection stability and gloss of ink.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Tomohide et al. (JP2018131591 A).
The disclosure of Sato on Claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
The difference between Sato and instant Claims 16-17 is that Sato is silent on the ink composition comprising a pigment-free polymer particle.
However, Tomohide discloses an aqueous ink, therefore, Tomohide teaches an analogous art of Sato. Tomohide teaches the aqueous ink comprising a polymer (A), an organic solvent (B) (ab.), pigments (lns148-169), and polymer (C ) wherein the polymer (C) is an acrylic polymer (lns420-435) which is neutralized by sodium hydroxide and ammonia (lns566-576). Tomohide further teaches that the polymer A is contained by the ink as particles and neutralized by hydroxides of alkali metals and/or ammonia (lns319-341). Tomohide furthermore teaches polymer ( C) having the functions as a pigment dispersant and fixing agent to a printing medium (lns399-403) and the ink comprising pigment-free polymer (C ) particles which are neutralized by hydroxides of alkali metals and/or ammonia (lns682-698). Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the pigment-free polymer ( C) particles function as a fixing agent. Tomohide discloses that both the Polymer (A) particles and the polymer ( C) particles improve fixability and water resistance (lns104-128 and lns399-419). In view of such benefits, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of instant application to incorporate Polymer (A) particles and/or the polymer ( C) particles in the ink of Sato to obtain a modified ink for the desired fixability and water resistance.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (WO2019013173 A1 citing US2020123402 A1 as English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagano teaches a water-based ink for ink-jet printing comprising crosslinked polymer particles comprising a pigment, an organic solvent and water (claim 1), wherein the polymer comprises a constitutional unit derived from acrylic acid and/or a constitutional unit derived from methacrylic acid (claim 3); and wherein an acid value of the crosslinked polymer is not less than 40 mgKOH/g and not more than 160 mgKOH/g (claim 4), overlapping the claimed not less than 45 mgKOH/g and not more than 180 mgKOH/g.
Nagano further teaches the polymer being neutralized, by of alkali metals or ammonia, and more preferred by a combination of sodium hydroxide and ammonia ([0082]), before being crosslinked ([0080] ). Nagano defines the degree of neutralization meaning the value calculated by dividing a mole equivalent of the neutralizing agent by a molar amount of the anionic groups of the polymer ([0084]). Nagano furthermore teaches degree of neutralization of the anionic groups of the polymer is preferably not less than 30 mol % and preferably not more than 300 mol % ([0084]). Nagano As the anionic groups of the polymer are acrylic acid and/or methacrylic acid groups (claim 3), Nagano teaches a total content of the alkali metal ions and the ammonium ions is not less than 30 mol % and not more than 300 mol % of on the basis of the whole molar amount of the carboxy groups of the polymer, overlapping the claimed not less than 100 mol % and not more than 185 mol %. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of not less than 100 mol % and not more than 185 mol %. Nagano exemplifies NaOH/KOH being used from 50 to 73 mol% of the molar amount of the carboxy groups of the polymer (Examples 1 and 5-11). Because NaOH/KOH, ammonia and acrylic acid/ methacrylic acid are inherently monovalent, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to test a combination of NaOH/KOH from 25 to 37 ((50-73)/2) mol% and ammonia from 64 to 160 mol% (100-37; 185-25) of the whole molar amount of the carboxy groups of the polymer, when testing a combination of sodium hydroxide and ammonia as neutralizing agents. In addition, Nagano discloses that the neutralizing agents are related to ejection stability and storage stability, therefore, the contents of NaOH/KOH and ammonia would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amounts of NaOH/KOH and ammonia cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amounts of NaOH/KOH and ammonia in the ink composition to reach the desired ejection stability and storage stability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding Claim 2, Nagano teaches NaOH/KOH as neutralizing agents (Examples 1 and 5-11).
Regarding Claim 3, Nagano exemplifies trimethylolpropane polyglycidyl ether as a crosslinking agent ([0166]).
Regarding Claim 4, Nagano teaches using glycol ethers as an organic solvent ([0124-0125]).
Regarding Claim 5, Nagano teaches that a content of the organic solvent in the water-based ink is not less than 30% by mass and not more than 65% by mass ([0008]), overlapping the claimed 15% by mass to 40% by mass.
Regarding Claim 6, Nagano teaches the crosslinked polymer particles containing a pigment and the crosslinked polymer is preferably in the form of a water-insoluble polymer ([0031-0033]).
Regarding Claim 7, Nagano teaches the ink composition comprising 0.5% by mass to 6% by mass of polymer ([0129]) and crosslinking rate of the polymer is 10 mol% to 90 mol% ([0008]). Because the molecular weight of crosslinking agent is much less than the mw of the polymer, the mass% of crosslinked polymer in the ink composition can be calculated as 0.5% * 10%=0.05% to 6%*90%=5.4%, overlapping the claimed 2 mass% to 15 mass%.
Regarding Claim 8, Nagano teaches the polymer comprising units derived from acrylic acid/ methacrylic acid (claim 3) and the crosslinked polymer is formed from crosslinking the polymer with a crosslinking agent ([0031]).
Regarding Claim 9, Nagano teaches the polymer is preferred vinyl-based polymers obtained by addition-polymerizing a vinyl monomer ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 10, Nagano teaches the vinyl-based polymer is a polymer produced by copolymerizing a monomer mixture A comprising (a) an ionic monomer and (b) a hydrophobic monomer ([0038]) wherein the ionic monomer preferred is a carboxy group-containing carboxylic acid monomer ([0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, Nagano teaches the content of the ionic monomer (a) is preferably not less than 3% by mass and not more than 60% by mass of the monomer mixture ([0059]).
Regarding Claim 12, Nagano teaches the content of the hydrophobic monomer (b) is preferably not less than 20% by mass and not more than 90% by mass of the monomer mixture ([0059]).
Regarding Claim 13, Nagano teaches acid value of the vinyl-based polymer is not less than 150 mg KOH/g ([0037]), encompassing the claimed 50 mg KOH/g to 500 mg KOH/g.
Regarding Claim 14, Nagano teaches crosslinking rate of the polymer is 10 mol% to 90 mol% ([0008]).
Regarding Claim 15, Nagano teaches glycol ether is preferred at least one compound selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol isopropyl ether, ethylene glycol propyl ether, diethylene glycol methyl ether, diethylene glycol isopropyl ether, diethylene glycol isobutyl ether and diethylene glycol butyl ether ([0125]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano, as applied to Claim 1 at para. 12, and in further view of Yoshida et al. (WO2019180847A1).
The disclosure of Nagano on Claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
The difference between Nagano and instant Claims 16-17 is that Nagano is silent on the ink composition comprising a pigment-free polymer particle.
However, Yoshida teaches an ink comprising water-based medium, a pigment dispersed with a polymer dispersant (a) (claim 1) wherein the water-based medium may contain water-soluble organic solvents ([0022]). Yoshida further teaches the polymer dispersant (a) is preferred vinyl-based polymer ([0040]) and the polymer dispersant (a) is preferred containing acid groups which are partially neutralized with a neutralizing agent ([0041]), wherein the examples of neutralizing agent include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide and ammonia ([0042]). Yoshida furthermore teaches the polymer dispersant (a) is partially crosslinked ([0143]). Therefore, Yoshida teaches an analogous art. Moreover, Yoshida teaches the ink comprising an emulsion of a polymer (b) in the form of a water dispersion of pigment free polymer particles ([0105]), wherein the polymer (b) is identical to the polymer dispersant (a) ([0107]) and the acid groups are preferred partially neutralized with a neutralizing agent, from the viewpoint of improving dispersion stability of the pigment as well as from the viewpoint of improving ejection stability and gloss of the ink ([0108]). In view of such benefits, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of instant application to incorporated partially neutralized pigment free polymer particles taught by Yoshida to the water-based ink of Nagano because Yoshida teaches the pigment free polymer particles improve dispersion stability of the pigment and improve ejection stability and gloss of ink.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano, as applied to Claim 1 at para.12, and in further view of Tomohide et al. (JP2018131591 A).
The disclosure of Nagano on Claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
The difference between Nagano and instant Claims 16-17 is that Nagano is silent on the ink composition comprising a pigment-free polymer particle.
However, Tomohide discloses an aqueous ink, therefore, Tomohide teaches an analogous art of Sato. Tomohide teaches the aqueous ink comprising a polymer (A), an organic solvent (B) (ab.), pigments (lns148-169), and polymer (C ) wherein the polymer (C) is an acrylic polymer (lns420-435) which is neutralized by sodium hydroxide and ammonia (lns566-576). Tomohide further teaches that the polymer A is contained by the ink as particles and neutralized by hydroxides of alkali metals and/or ammonia (lns319-341). Tomohide furthermore teaches polymer ( C) having the functions as a pigment dispersant and a fixing agent to a printing medium (lns399-403) and the ink comprising pigment-free polymer (C ) particles which are neutralized by hydroxides of alkali metals and/or ammonia (lns682-698). Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the pigment-free polymer ( C) particles function as a fixing agent. Tomohide discloses that both the Polymer (A) particles and the polymer ( C) particles improve fixability and water resistance (lns104-128 and lns399-419). In view of such benefits, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of instant application to incorporate Polymer (A) particles and/or the polymer ( C) particles in the ink of Sato to obtain a modified ink for the desired fixability and water resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/HUIHONG QIAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights