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 .
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) 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goustiaux et al (US 2016/0272827) with evidence by Urata et al (US 2003/0055163).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Goustiaux teaches an inkjet ink (Abstract) which comprises: a terpene resin (Abstract). The composition also contains a solvent which comprises at least 20 to 90 % by weight of the total ink composition ([0107]). The solvent is a combination of solvents ([0110] and the solvent can contain methyl ethyl ketone ([0015]) which has a boiling point of 79.6 C (as evidenced by Urata, [0050]) and dioxolane ([0121]).
Goustiaux fails to specifically exemplify the exact recited invention. However, Goustiaux discloses each of the components of the ink, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the ink. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the inks suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the inks suggested by Goustiaux, including the claimed ink. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to us the teachings of Goustiaux to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would be nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Goustiaux teaches that the terpene resin is present in the amount from 0.1 to 15 % by weight ([0097]).
Regarding claim 8, Goustiaux teaches that the terpene resin is present in the amount from 0.1 to 15 % by weight ([0097]) and that the total amount of solvent ranges from 20 to 90 % by weight ([0107]). Given these amounts and that the amount of dioxolane can vary from 0 to 100 % by weight of the solvent, the weight ratio of the dioxolane to the terpene resin reads on the recited range.
Regarding claim 9, Goustiaux teaches that the solvent system further contains a glycol ether ([0116]).
Regarding claim 10, Goustiaux teaches that the solvent comprises at least 20 to 90 % by weight of the total ink composition ([0107]) and that the glycol ether is present in the amount from 0.1 to 20 % by weight of the solvent ([0125]). Therefore, the amount of the glycol ether can be calculated to range from 0.02 to 18 % by weight of the total ink composition.
Regarding claim 11, Goustiaux teaches that the composition further comprises an alcohol solvent ([0114)].
Regarding claim 12, Goustiaux teaches that the amount of solvent in the ink composition ranges from 20 to 90 % by weight of the ink ([0107]) and that the solvent can be a blend of organic solvents ([0110]). The solvent can contain methyl ethyl ketone ([0115]), dioxolane ([0121]) and an alcohol ([0114]). Goustiaux does not teach the alcohol in the claimed amount. However, it is well known in the art to optimize result effective variables such as the amount of the solvents in a solvent blend. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the different amount of each of the solvent in a mixed solvent, and the motivation to so would have been, as Goustiaux suggests, to manage the volatility of the solvent system ([0109]).
Regarding claims 15-16, Goustiaux teaches that the composition further comprises a surfactant ([0148]) which is present in an amount of less than 5 % by weight ([0149]).
Regarding claim 18, Goustiaux teaches that the ink further comprises a colorant ([0126]).
Regarding claim 19, Goustiaux teaches a printed article comprising a substrate ([0152]) and a dried form of the inkjet ink of claim 1 disposed on the substrate (Examples).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goustiaux et al (US 2016/0272827) with evidence by Urata et al (US 2003/0055163) and Collins et al (US 2004/0180291).
The discussion regarding Goustiaux and Urata in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 17, Goustiaux teaches that the surfactant can be BYK 333 ([0148]) and as evidenced by Collins, is a polyether modified silicone surfactant ([0061]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goustiaux et al (US 2016/0272827) in view of Drake et al (US 4,638,328) with evidence by Urata et al (US 2003/0055163).
The discussion regarding Goustiaux and Urata in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 20, Goustiaux teaches a method of forming a printed image on a substrate applying the inkjet ink of claim 1 onto the substrate via a continuous deflected jet printing ([0162]) and then drying the ink ([0165]).
However, Goustiaux fails to teach that it is a thermal inkjet print head.
Drake teaches a continuous stream type inkjet printhead (Abstract) which uses thermal pulses to move the ink through the printhead (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the continuous jet printing of Goustiaux have the thermal ink head as taught by Drake. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of providing a printhead that is cost effective to manufacture as well as not causing the ink to change phases or states (Drake, col 3, lines 40-50).
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millot et al (US 6,869,986) in view of Carlini et al (US 2013/0035428) with evidence by Urata et al (US 2003/0055163).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 4-6, Millot teaches an inkjet ink (Abstract) which contains at least 10 to 85 % by weight of dioxolane as a solvent (col. 6, lines 10-20). The ink also contains in an amount from 5 to 50 % by weight (col. 6, lines 15-20) of a second solvent such as methyl ethyl ketone (col. 6, lines 45-50) which has a boiling point of which has a boiling point of 79.6 C (as evidenced by Urata, [0050])
Millot teaches that the ink can contain a binder comprising a polymer and/or resin (col. 6, lines 60-65), however fails to teach the presence of the terpene resin.
Carlini teaches and ink composition for use in inkjet applications ([0053]) which incorporates a polyterpene resin which can be a homopolymer of alpha-pinene ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyterpene resin of Carlini as the binder of Millot. One would be motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of providing good thermal stability and can come from renewable sources (Millot, [0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Millot teaches an ink with least 10 to 85 % by weight of dioxolane as a solvent (col. 6, lines 10-20) and from 5 to 50 % by weight (col. 6, lines 15-20) of a second solvent such as methyl ethyl ketone (col. 6, lines 45-50). Given these amounts the weight ratio of the dioxolane to the ketone solvent would overlap the claimed range.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goustiaux et al (US 2016/0272827) in view of Carlini et al (US 2013/0035428) with evidence by Urata et al (US 2003/0055163).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5 and 13-14, Goustiaux teaches an inkjet ink (Abstract) which comprises: a terpene-phenol resin (Abstract). The terpene-phenol resin is present in the amount from 0.1 to 15 % by weight ([0097]) The composition also contains a solvent which comprises at least 20 to 90 % by weight of the total ink composition ([0107]). The solvent is a combination of solvents ([0110] and the solvent can contain methyl ethyl ketone ([0015]) which has a boiling point of 79.6 C (as evidenced by Urata, [0050]) and dioxolane ([0121]).
Goustiaux teaches that other polymer resins can be added to the composition, however is silent to the addition of a terpene resin.
Carlini teaches and ink composition for use in inkjet applications ([0053]) which incorporates a polyterpene resin which can be a homopolymer of alpha-pinene ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyterpene resin of Carlini as the additional resin of Goustiaux. One would be motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of providing good thermal stability and can come from renewable sources (Millot, [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764