Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/285,838

PRINTING INK

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 05, 2023
Examiner
SHAH, MANISH S
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fujifilm Speciality Ink Systems Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1162 granted / 1355 resolved
+17.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1383
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.6%
+15.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
§112
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1355 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (# US 2014/0370248) in view of Goto et al. (# US 2016/0122563). Hall et al. discloses: 1. An inkjet ink (see Abstract) comprising: a radiation-curable material, wherein the radiation curable material comprises polyethylene glycol (600) diacrylate ([0073]); 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-1-oxyl (OHTEMPO: 4-Hydroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-piperidinooxy ex Specbiochem ; see Table: 1); and one or more photoinitiators (see Abstract) The Examiner draws particular attention to the Applicant that "Hall et al. does address a radiation curable material, photoinitiator, polymerizable compound, monomers antioxidant, inhibitors and surfactant, it teaches a laundry list of possible radiation curable material, photoinitiator, polymerizable compound, monomers antioxidant, inhibitors and surfactant. The format in which Hall et al. presents its teaching does not change the fact that it teaches the claimed invention. It is not necessary for Hall et al. to present its teaching in an example format citing it in a list is sufficient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence to the contrary, to choose any of the radiation curable material, photoinitiator, polymerizable compound, monomers antioxidant, inhibitors and surfactant from the list and any additives from the list, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. However, "applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others." In re Courtright, 377. 6. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ink comprises 0.01 to 2.5% by weight of 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-1-oxyl, based on the total weight of the ink (0.1 to 0.5%; see Table 1; OHTEMPO). 7. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the radiation-curable material comprises a radiation-curable monomer, preferably present in 60.0 to 95.0% by weight, based on the total weight of the ink ([0068]; [0087]). 8. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the radiation-curable material further comprises one or more of a monofunctional (meth)acrylate monomer (mono or multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer; [0087]), and an N-vinyl amide monomer ([0076]-[0188]). 9. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the radiation-curable material comprises N-vinyl caprolactam ([0072]), based on the total weight of the ink. 10. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polyethylene glycol (600) diacrylate ([0073]), preferably present in 1.0 to 30.0% by weight, based on the total weight of the ink (1 to 20%; [0074]). 11. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the radiation-curable material comprises (2-methyl-2-ethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-yl)methyl acrylate and/or isopropylidene glycerol acrylate (see Examples). 12. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the radiation-curable material comprises cyclic TMP formal acrylate (see Examples). 13. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the radiation-curable material comprises: N-vinyl caprolactam ([0072]); polyethylene glycol (600) diacrylate ([0073]); cyclic TMP formal acrylate; and (2-methyl-2-ethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-yl) methyl acrylate and/or isopropylidene glycerol acrylate (see Examples). 14. A method of inkjet printing comprising inkjet printing the inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1 onto a substrate and curing the inkjet ink by exposing the inkjet ink to a curing source (see claims 12-14). 15. A substrate having the inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1 printed thereon (see Examples). Hall et al. explicitly did not discloses: 1. The photoinitiators selected from ethyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phenyl phosphinate, ethyl(3-benzoyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)(phenyl) phosphinate, a polymeric phosphine oxide photoinitiator and mixtures thereof. 2. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polymeric phosphine oxide photoinitiator is PNG media_image1.png 506 1104 media_image1.png Greyscale 3. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inkjet ink comprises ethyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phenyl phosphinate, based on the total weight of the ink (0.1 to 12%; [0191]). 4. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inkjet ink comprises ethyl(3-benzoyl-2,4,6-tri methylbenzoyl)(phenyl) phosphinate, based on the total weight of the ink (0.1 to 12%; [0191]-[0198]). 5. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1 wherein the inkjet ink comprises a polymeric phosphine oxide photoinitiator, based on the total weight of the ink (0.1 to 12%; [0191]-[0198]). Goto et al. teaches to have etch resistance print image, 1. The ink composition ([0198]) comprises , photoinitiator are selected from Lucirin TPO-L (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl phenylethoxyphoephine oxide) available from BASF Corporation and Lucirin TPO (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide), which are same as applicant discloses in their own specification in ([0113]-[0114]) of US publication (# US 2024/0368417).to have 3. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inkjet ink comprises ethyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phenyl phosphinate, based on the total weight of the ink ([0191]-[0198]). 4. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inkjet ink comprises ethyl(3-benzoyl-2,4,6-tri methylbenzoyl)(phenyl) phosphinate, based on the total weight of the ink ([0191]-[0198]). 5. The inkjet ink as claimed in claim 1 wherein the inkjet ink comprises a polymeric phosphine oxide photoinitiator, based on the total weight of the ink (0.1 to 12%; [0191]-[0198]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the ink composition of Hall et al. by the aforementioned teaching of Goto et al. in order to have the etch resistance high quality printed image. With respect to claim 2, However, Goto et al. teaches in ([0198]), photoinitiator are selected from Lucirin TPO-L (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl phenylethoxyphoephine oxide) available from BASF Corporation and Lucirin TPO (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide), which are same as applicant discloses in their own specification in ([0113]-[0114]) of US publication (# US 2024/0368417). The structure formula is constant to material. Therefore the Lucirin TPO-L (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl phenylethoxyphoephine oxide) discloses by Goto et al. obviously have the structure formula: PNG media_image1.png 506 1104 media_image1.png Greyscale 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 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANISH S SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2152. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm. 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. MANISH S. SHAH Primary Examiner Art Unit 2853 /Manish S Shah/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 05, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 16, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595386
AQUEOUS INK, INK CARTRIDGE AND INK JET RECORDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590215
INK FOR INK-JET TEXTILE PRINTING, METHOD FOR PRODUCING PRINTED MATTER USING SAID INK, AND ARTICLE WITH ADHERED IMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584030
Ink Jet Ink Composition And Recording Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584032
REACTION LIQUID AND INK JET RECORDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583222
SOLVENT COMPATIBLE NOZZLE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1355 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month