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.
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.
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/071055 in view of ELLIS (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0060670, hereinafter ELLIS).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, SATO et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0041877, hereinafter SATO) which is an English equivalent of WO 2020/071055 will be used in the rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, SATO teaches an aqueous inkjet ink composition that contains a pigment, an alkali-soluble resin, an aqueous medium, and surfactant (Abstract). The pigment various of organic pigments and inorganic pigments. The inorganic pigments includes titanium oxide [0024-0025 and 0086]. The alkali-soluble resin is a copolymer constituted by monomers having are carboxyl groups include acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, styrene and etc. [0032-0034]. The amount of titanium oxide is 1 to 10 percent by mass [0029].
The alkali-soluble resin has an acid value is 100 to 300 mg KOH/g [0035], a glass transition temperature of 40 to 100oC [0036], and a weight-average molecular weight of the alkali-soluble resin is 10,000 to 50,000 [0037]. The amount of alkali-soluble resin is in the amount of 10 to 60 parts by mass [0039].
However, SATO does not explicitly teach a white composition.
Given SATO teaches pigments including titanium oxide [0024-0025 and 0086]] which is a well-known white pigment, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the ink composition to be a white ink composition when titanium oxide is used as the pigment in the composition.
However, SATO does not teach said titanium oxide pigment being treated with silica, alumina, and organic compounds.
In the same field of endeavor of an aqueous white ink [0025] for inkjets [0018], ELLIS teaches the ink formulation comprises titanium dioxide pigment which bears one or more metal oxide surface coatings including silica, alumina, alumina-silica, and others [0034]. The titanium dioxide pigment can contain one or more organic surface coatings such as carboxylic acids, silanes, siloxanes, and hydrocarbon waxes [0035]. The titanium dioxide is present in a range of from about 1 wt% to about 25 wt% (solids) [0119]. The ink formulation provides desirable properties such as good hiding, uniform coverage, and good clarity when applied to surfaces [0025].
Note: titanium dioxide is a species of titanium oxide which would satisfy the broadly claimed titanium oxide.
Given SATO teaches an aqueous inkjet ink composition that contains a pigment (i.e., titanium oxide) [0024-0025 and 0086], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the surface-coated titanium oxide of ELLIS with the ink composition of SATO for the benefit of
providing desirable ink properties (e.g., good hiding, uniform coverage, and good clarity when applied to surfaces) as taught by ELLIS. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/071055 in view of ORIAKHI (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0002481, hereinafter ORIAKHI).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, SATO et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0041877, hereinafter SATO) which is an English equivalent of WO 2020/071055 will be used in the rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, SATO teaches an aqueous inkjet ink composition that contains a pigment, an alkali-soluble resin, an aqueous medium, and surfactant (Abstract). The pigment various of organic pigments and inorganic pigments. The inorganic pigments includes titanium oxide [0024-0025 and 0086]. The amount of titanium oxide is 1 to 10 percent by mass [0029].
The alkali-soluble resin is a copolymer constituted by monomers having are carboxyl groups include acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, styrene and etc. [0032-0034]. The alkali-soluble resin has an acid value is 100 to 300 mg KOH/g [0035], a glass transition temperature of 40 to 100oC [0036], and a weight-average molecular weight of the alkali-soluble resin is 10,000 to 50,000 [0037]. The amount of alkali-soluble resin is in the amount of 10 to 60 parts by mass [0039].
However, SATO does not explicitly teach a white composition.
Given SATO teaches pigments including titanium oxide [0024-0025 and 0086]] which is a well-known white pigment, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the ink composition to be a white ink composition when titanium oxide is used as the pigment in the composition.
However, SATO does not teach said titanium oxide pigment being treated with silica, alumina, and organic compounds.
In the same field of endeavor of white ink composition (Title) for ink-jet printing and in-jet ink (Abstract; [0001]), ORIAKHI teaches the ink composition comprises (a) from 1 to 20 parts of surface treated titanium dioxide (Abstract; [0016-0017]). When components (a)-(g) are converted from parts to % by mass [0016-0023 and 0066-0072], the total amount is 1 to 20% by mass.
The surface of the surface treated titanium dioxide is treated with alumina, silica, or a mixture thereof ([0034 and 0038]; Claim 3). The surface of the surface treated titanium dioxide can also have one or more organic surface coatings selected from the group consisting of carboxylic acids, silanes, siloxanes and hydrocarbon waxes, and their reaction products [0035]. The titanium dioxide provides excellent ink properties including high hiding or decorative printing applications [0028] and white color with some degree of transparency [0029].
Note: titanium dioxide is a species of titanium oxide which would satisfy the broadly claimed titanium oxide.
Given SATO teaches an aqueous inkjet ink composition that contains a pigment (i.e., titanium oxide) [0024-0025 and 0086], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the surface treated titanium oxide of ORIAKHI with the ink composition of SATO for the benefit of obtaining excellent ink properties as taught by ORIAKHI. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and affidavit with respect to claims 1 and 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights