DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendment received on 04/30/2026:
• Claims 1 and 5-8 are currently pending. Claims 2-4 are canceled. Claims 7-8 are withdrawn for being directed to a non-elected invention(s). The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (JP-H10237372-A), with reference to the previously included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Takada”), in view of Aoai (US-20060262174-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Aoai”) and Fujii et al. (US-20120320137-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Fujii”), and alternatively, further in view of Kagawa et al. (US-20210268819-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Kagawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Takada teaches an inkjet processing solution (see Takada at pg. 3, para. 2, teaching a liquid composition; also see Takada at pg. 13, para. 1, teaching the application of the liquid composition and the ink are carried out by an ink jet recording method; the liquid composition of Takada corresponds to the claimed “processing solution”), comprising:
• a cationic polymer; and lactic acid (see Takada at pg. 3, para. 2, teaching the liquid composition as containing a cationic polymer; also see Takada at pg. 4, para. 1, teaching the liquid composition may contain a pH adjuster, such as lactic acid),
• wherein the pH is 7 to 9.5 (see Takada at pg. 4, para. 1, teaching the pH of the liquid composition to range from 5 to 9, which overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05), wherein
• a content of the cationic polymer is 0.5 wt% or more and 29.5 wt% or less with respect to an entire amount of the inkjet processing solution (see Takada at pg. 4, para. 5, teaching the concentration of the cationic polymer in the aqueous medium to range from 0.05 to 20 wt%; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05; also see Takada at pg. 13, para. 7-11, teaching example liquid compositions containing 4% of cationic polymer; accordingly, Takada reasonably teaches, via their example embodiments, a concentration for the cationic polymer that falls within the claimed range (e.g., 4%)); wherein
• a content of the lactic acid is 0.2 wt% or more and 17.5 wt% or less with respect to the entire amount of the inkjet processing solution (see Takada at pg. 13, para. 7-11, teaching example liquid compositions containing acetic acid, or the pH adjuster, in an amount of 3.5 wt%; thus, Takada reasonably teaches via their example embodiments a content for their pH adjuster (e.g., lactic/acetic acid) that falls within the claimed range (3.5 wt%)).
In the alternative, it is well-known that pH adjusters are used in small amounts in treatment compositions, e.g., around 0.01 to 5 wt% or less (see Kagawa at para. 0034 and 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the content of lactic acid as a pH adjuster in the liquid composition of Takada to range from 0.01 to 5 wt%, as such a concentration for a pH adjuster is conventional in the art (see Kagawa at para. 0034 and 0037). Combining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143.
This range of 0.01 to 5 wt% overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
While Takada (or modified Takada) teaches the processing solution outlined above, Takada fails to teach the processing solution as (1) having a halogen ion concentration of 5 g/L or less and (2) as containing a quaternary ammonium-containing polymer as the cationic polymer.
Regarding (1), Aoai teaches an ink composition for inkjet recording (see Aoia at para. 0003). Aoai further teaches the halogen ion content of the ink to preferably be no greater than 500 ppm, to prevent corrosion of the ink jet head and to thus prevent poor discharge stability (see Aoai at para. 0018).
Takada teaches the concentration of chloride ions in their liquid composition to range from 3,000 ppm or less, in order to prevent corrosion of the recording head, which may lead to deterioration of image quality (see Takada at pg. 3, para. 6). One of ordinary skill would readily recognize the beneficial effect of expanding such a content minimization to halogens as a whole rather than simply chloride ions in order to further prevent inkjet head corrosion (see Aoia at para. 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set the halogen ion content in the processing solution to be as low as possible, e.g., 0 ppm, in order to prevent corrosion of the ink jet head and thus to maintain sufficient discharge stability (see Aoai at para. 0018).
This value of 0 ppm falls within the claimed range.
Regarding (2), quaternary ammonium salts are well-known cationic polymers suitable for use as coagulants in inkjet treatment liquids (see Fujii at para. 0085-0086 and 0100).
Takada teaches their cationic polymer as reacting with an anionic substance in the ink to form an aggregate, i.e., functions as a coagulant (see Takada at pg. 13, para. 3). Moreover, Takada teaches the cationic polymer may be “for example, polyallylamine, polyamine sulfone…polyvinylamine, and the like” (emphasis added by Examiner). Thus, Takada reasonably teaches their cationic polymer is not limited strictly to polyallylamine, polyamine sulfone, and polyvinylamine cationic polymers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a quaternary ammonium salt as the cationic polymer in modified Takada, as the selection of a known material (quaternary ammonium salt cationic polymer), which is based upon its suitability for the intended use (as a coagulant in a treatment liquid), is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claims 5-6, it is noted the limitation “for textile printing” and “for textile printing using an inkjet ink including an anionic pigment” are recitations of intended use. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the limitation. See MPEP § 2111.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth below.
First, Applicants argue their examples show a treatment liquid containing lactic acid in the claimed amount suppresses yellowing of a recording medium, and further, that using a quaternary ammonium salt in the claimed amount enables increased image density (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 5).
However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
First, starting with lactic acid, Applicants’ examples are not fully commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See MPEP § 716.02(d). Applicants claim a lactic acid concentration ranging from 0.2 to 17.5 wt%; however, Applicants examples only test values of 2 wt% and 18 wt% (see para. 0104 of Applicant’s specification). Such values provide no insight into the “in-between” values of, e.g., 5 wt%, 8 wt%, 10 wt%, 15 wt%, etc. As such, it is unclear whether Applicants alleged showing of unexpected results applies to the varying embodiments for the lactic acid concentration included in claim 1.
Moreover, the acetic acid used in Applicant’s Comparative Example 5 is used at a concentration of 0.8 wt% (see para. 0104 of Applicant’s specification). This concentration is completely different from the concentrations of 2 wt% and 18 wt% in the inventive examples. Consequently, comparisons between Comparative Example 5 and the inventive examples are brought into question. For instance, it is entirely possible that an acetic acid concentration of 2 wt% generates excellent results in yellowing, and that it is simply the concentration, rather than the specific acid utilized, that generates the observed effect.
Similarly as above, Example 4 of Applicants’ examples uses an entirely different quaternary ammonium salt at a much larger concentration of 30 wt% relative to the other examples (see para. 0104 of Applicant’s specification). Thus, comparisons between Example 4 and the other examples is brought into question. In other words, the lactic acid concentration of 18 wt% may or may not be contributing to the worsened yellowing – it is unclear whether such an effect is simply caused by the quaternary ammonium salt differences between the examples or the lactic acid concentration.
Next, for the quaternary ammonium salt, Applicants’ examples are not fully commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See MPEP § 716.02(d). Applicants claim a quaternary ammonium salt concentration ranging from 0.5 to 29.5 wt%; however, Applicants examples only test values of 0.5 wt%, 3 wt%, and 30 wt% (see para. 0104 of Applicant’s specification). Such values provide no insight into the “in-between” values of, e.g., 5 wt%, 8 wt%, 10 wt%, 25 wt%, etc. As such, it is unclear whether Applicants alleged showing of unexpected results applies to the varying embodiments for the quaternary ammonium salt concentration included in claim 1.
Moreover, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP § 716.02(d)(II). Applicants fail to provide comparative examples where the quaternary ammonium salt concentration is less than 0.5 wt%. As such, doubts are raised as to the criticality of the claimed range.
Furthermore, Example 4 of Applicant’s specification, which has a cationic polymer concentration outside the claimed range (30 wt%), demonstrates the greatest image density of 1.45 relative to all the other examples (see para. 0104 of Applicant’s specification). As such, doubts are raised as to the criticality of the claimed range, given one example outside the claimed range shows superior image density.
Lastly, in general, at equal conditions and concentrations, quaternary ammonium salts would be expected to generate higher image density than equivalent secondary or tertiary amines. This is because quaternary ammonium salts have a permanent positive charge that is more likely to attract anionic colorant particles, producing greater aggregation of the colorant and thus greater image density. Thus, the presence of greater image density through the use of a quaternary ammonium salt is not entirely unexpected.
Because of the above deficiencies, Applicant’s examples do not sufficiently demonstrate criticality and/or unexpected results of the claimed processing solution.
Next, Applicants argue none of the prior art references teach any combination of a quaternary ammonium salt with lactic acid at the claimed concentration ranges (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 5-6).
However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
The combination of Takada, Aoai, Fujii, and alternatively Kagawa teaches the claimed composition. Quaternary ammonium salts are well-known coagulants in treatment liquids (see Fujii at paara. 0085-0086 and 0100). Further, pH adjusters are well known to be used in the art, including at concentrations of 0.01 to 5 wt% (see Kagawa at para. 0034 and 0037). In fact, Takada themselves teach examples where their pH adjuster is used in an amount falling within the claimed range (3.5 wt%, see Takada at pg. 13, para. 7-11). Consequently, while none of the references in isolation teach the claimed composition, the references in combination render the composition obvious. Applicants have not provided a specific reason why the combination of references would not be obvious, merely broadly indicating that none of the references in isolation teach the claimed composition. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145(IV). Thus, the prima facie case of obviousness is maintained.
Examiner’s Suggestions
In the interest of expedited prosecution, the Examiner proposes a potential amendment to overcome the current grounds of rejection. It is noted that this amendment is suggested following a brief, cursory glance of the specification and the prior art, and there is no guarantee such amendment won’t read on the current references upon a more detailed review. Moreover, further search and consideration would be required if such amendment is added (i.e., allowability is NOT guaranteed following the incorporation of such amendment). Lastly, Applicants may use all or none of such suggestion – it is merely intended as a helpful starting point for potential future amendments, if desired. If Applicants wish to clarify or discuss the below suggested amendment further, the Examiner invites Applicants to telephone for an interview.
Amendment Suggestion 1 (support found at para. 0019 of Applicant’s specification):
“…a content of the cationic polymer is 29.5 [[0.5]] weight % or more and 35.0 [[29.5]] weight% or less with respect to an entire amount of the inkjet processing solution, and…”
Examiner’s Note: the above amendment appears, upon a brief cursory glance, to overcome the current grounds of rejection. Takada teaches a concentration for their cationic polymer of 0.05 to 20 wt% (see Takada at pg. 4, para. 5); the amended range in suggestion 1 falls outside this range, thus appearing to overcome Takada.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/JEFFREY EUGENE BARZACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights