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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 11/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/30/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
• Claim 1 should be amended as follows: “…wherein the processing solution has a halogen ion concentration of 5 g/L or less and a pH of 7 to 9.5.
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 1, 3, 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 included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Takada”), in view of Aoai (US-20060262174-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Aoai”).
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.
While Takada teaches the processing solution outlined above, Takada fails to teach the processing solution as having a halogen ion concentration of 5 g/L or less.
However, 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 claim 3, 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%).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Aoai, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (US-20120320137-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Fujii”).
Regarding claim 2, while Takada in view of Aoai teaches the processing solution according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Takada fails to teach the cationic polymer as including a quaternary ammonium-containing cationic polymer.
However, 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Aoai, as applied to claim 1 above, or, in the alternative, further in view of Kagawa et al. (US-20210268819-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Kagawa”).
Regarding claim 4, Takada as modified by Aoai teaches the processing solution according to claim 1 outlined above, wherein the processing solution contains 20 wt% or less of lactic acid 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). Concentrations for a pH adjuster of 20% or more is exceedingly large.
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 modified 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% falls within the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Adachi et al. (EP-1547793-A1) teach a processing liquid for ink-jet recording (see Adachi at Abstract).
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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731