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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the reference Demura fails to teach the “use or test of the claimed specific composition as an aqueous inkjet ink for printing on a textile product.” The applicant argues further that the references Akira and Herrmann fails to cure this deficiencies despite Herrmann listing textile materials as recording mediums the ink can be printed on since Herrmann only gives an example using a paper. The applicant’s argument has been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Herrmann does not give an example of printing the ink onto any textile materials, Herrmann specifically discloses that the ink can be printed on several types of textile materials such as fibres, yarns, threads, knits, wovens, nonwovens, and etc. Therefore, the reference Herrmann gives a broad disclosure of an aqueous inkjet ink that can be printed on a textile product which encompasses the given limitation.
Furthermore, having an aqueous inkjet ink for printing on a textile product within the preamble of claim 1 does not give the claim patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.02 (II) where “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)” and “Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demura et al. (JP 2007254735 A) in view of Akira et al. (JP 2006176759 A) and Herrmann (US 20060189713 Al).
Regarding claim 1, Demura teaches an aqueous inkjet ink (Page 1, paragraph 2 describes how the invention relates to an inkjet "containing the aqueous pigment dispersion as a main component".) comprising an aqueous pigment dispersion (Page 1, paragraph 5 describes how the invention involves a "yellow aqueous pigment dispersion".) comprising:
a bisacetoacetarylide pigment (A) which is C.I. Pigment Yellow 155 (Page 1, paragraph 6 describes how the invention contains a "bisacetoacetoarylide pigment (a)".); (Page 1, paragraph 4 describes how the invention uses the "Pigment Yellow 155". "Pigment Yellow 155" is also mentioned in page 3, paragraph 3 as an example pigment that could be used for "general formula (3) or the general formula (4).)
a dispersant (B) (Page 1, paragraphs 3 and 4 both mention how the invention uses a dispersant) which is styrene-(meth)acrylate-(meth)acrylic acid-based copolymer (The third paragraph on page 4 describes a dispersant that is a "styrene-acrylic acid-based copolymer" that may also contain acrylic and methacrylic acids including several (meth)acrylate examples including "methyl (meth) acrylate, ethyl (meth) acrylate, n-propyl (meth) acrylate, isopropyl (meth) acrylate, n-butyl (meth) acrylate, ... [etc.]". The last paragraph of page 3 and continuing to page 4 further describes the dispersant “contains all methacrylic acid” as well.); and
an aqueous medium (C) (Page 2, paragraph 2 describes how the invention provides an aqueous pigment dispersion by dispersing the pigment dispersion in an "aqueous medium".),
The combination of Demura and Akira fail to teach printing on a textile product.
However, Herrmann teaches printing on a textile product (Paragraph [0134] describes the different types of materials that could be used for the aqueous pigment printing including textiles, fibers, yarns, and more).
Demura, Akira, and Herrmann are analogous to the invention because they are in the same field involving an aqueous pigment for an ink jet. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aqueous pigment dispersion as taught in Demura to also apply the aqueous inkjet ink on a textile product as taught by Akira for the purpose of creating another source of revenue by having another medium to print on.
Demura fails to teach the aqueous pigment dispersion having an absorbance ratio represented by (absorbance at a wavelength of 408 nm)/(absorbance at a wavelength of 450 nm) of 1.40 or more.
However, Akira teaches the aqueous pigment dispersion having an absorbance ratio represented by (absorbance at a wavelength of 408 nm)/(absorbance at a wavelength of 450 nm) of 1.40 or more. (Paragraphs [0020] and [0021] describes how the absorption spectrum wavelength is given the range of 400 to 800 nm, which aligns with the wavelength value mentioned in the application invention, and an absorbance ratio preferred at 1.26 or more, which encompasses the absorbance ratio range.)
Demura and Akira are analogous to the invention because they are in the same field involving an aqueous pigment dispersion. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aqueous pigment dispersion as taught in Demura to also apply the aqueous pigment dispersion having an absorbance ratio of 1.40 or more as taught by Akira for the purpose of improving the dispersion stability (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Demura, Akira, and Herrmann teaches the aqueous inkjet ink according to claim 1, Demura further discloses wherein a mass average molecular weight of the dispersant (B) is 1,500 to 8,000 (The second to last paragraph on page 4 describes the most preferable weight average molecular wight range to be between 7,500 to 14,000, which overlaps the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Demura, Akira, and Herrmann teaches the aqueous inkjet ink according to claim 1, Demura further discloses wherein an acid value of the dispersant (B) is in a range of 167 to 350 mg KOH/g (The second paragraph of page 4 describes how the preferred range acid value of the dispersant styrene-acrylic acid copolymer is 100 to 200 mgKOH/g which overlaps the given claimed range.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Demura, Akira, and Herrmann teaches the aqueous ink jet ink according to claim 1, Demura further discloses the aqueous ink jet ink comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of glycerin, triethylene glycol, and 3-methyl-1,5-pentanediol (The last paragraph on page 6 that continues onto page 7 describes how the ink may further include more diol compounds and lists several examples including glycerin, triethylene glycol, and 5-pentanediol.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Demura, Akira, and Herrmann teaches the aqueous inkjet ink according to claim 1, further comprising an acetylene glycol surfactant (The paragraph that continues onto page 7 describes how the ink of the described invention is also a surfactant. The first paragraph on page 12 further discloses an example aqueous pigment dispersion where the surfactant is a “acetylene glycol surfactant”.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Demura et al. (JP 2007254735 A) and Akira et al. (JP 2006176759 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kido et al. (JP 2016199643 A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Demura, Akira, and Herrmann teaches the aqueous inkjet ink according to claim 1,
Modified Demura fails to teach the aqueous inkjet ink further comprising a urethane resin.
However, Kido teaches the aqueous inkjet ink further comprising a urethane resin (The first paragraph under the “(Binder Resin)” on page 3 describes how the pigment that is dispersed also contains a urethane resin with a polycarbonate structure.)
Modified Demura and Kido are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an aqueous inkjet ink. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aqueous inkjet ink taught by modified Demura to also apply the aqueous inkjet ink further comprising a urethane resin taught by Kido. This would have been done for the purpose of improving the storage stability and having excellent fastness, color developability, and texture (Kido, page 3, first paragraph under the “(Binder Resin)”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the primary reason for allowance of claim 12 is the inclusion of the “a pigment sedimentation velocity is 18.5 µm/day or less.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakai et al. (US 20150259550 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853