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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Group II (claims 19-20) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/9/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai et al (US 20180056691 A1).
Regarding claims 1-8, Arai teaches an inkjet ink set comprising an ink composition comprising a pigment as a colorant and an overcoat liquid comprising water and particles of a resin [0013, 0186, 0200], a water-soluble organic solvent [0355].
The water reads on the claimed water.
The water-soluble organic solvent includes 1,2-hexanediol [0360], reading on the claimed co-medium, as evidenced by the applicant [0069 spec.].
The pigment is in particle form [0244], reading the claimed pigment particles.
The resin particles comprise a polymerization product of reactants comprising a first constitutional unit derived from a monomer having at least one group selected from a phosphonic acid group and a salt of a phosphonic acid group such as bis(2-methacryloyloxyethyl) acid phosphate [0076] (BMEP), and a second constitutional unit including styrene [0097, 0111]. Resin particles A-5 in Table 1 contains Solution A which comprises 8.3 g of emulsifying agent and 27.7 g of BMEP; and Solution B which comprises 110 g of styrene and 30 g of 2-ethylhexyl acylate [0495].
The styrene and 2-ethylhexyl acylate read on the claimed hydrophobic monomer, as evidenced by the applicant [0010 spec.].
The BMEP reads on the claimed anionic monomers comprising one or more types of crosslinkable anionic monomers, as specified in claims 7, 8.
The ratio of solution B/A is 0.2 [Table 1]. Thus, the total amount of BMEP in the resin particles is 43 wt%, as calculated by the examiner, meeting the claimed “a total amount of polymerized crosslinkable anionic monomers in the resin particles is at least about 1 weight% and a total amount of polymerized anionic monomers in the resin particles is at least about 15 weight%” in claim 2, and “a total amount of polymerized crosslinkable anionic monomers in the resin particles is at least about 3 weight% and a total amount of polymerized anionic monomers in the resin particles is at least about 20 weight%” in claim 3.
Arai teaches that a pigment is dispersed by a polymer dispersing agent, that is, at least a part of a pigment is coated with a polymer dispersing agent [0209]. The pigments include magenta pigment [0535] and black pigment [0542]. Thus, the pigment particles comprise water-insoluble polymer dispersed magenta pigment particles or black pigment particles, meeting claims 4-6.
Regarding claims 9-14, the limitations include all those listed in claims 1-8 and are addressed above.
Regarding claim 15, Arai teaches that the resin comprises styrene as stated above, and further comprises an anionic dissociable group-containing acrylic monomer including methacrylic acid [0258].
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Arai teaches that the water-soluble organic solvent includes 1,2-hexanediol as stated above, and further includes propylene glycol and glycerin (glycerol) [0357].
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatoki et al (US 20230212412 A1) in view of Arai et al (US 20180056691 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Masatoki teaches a water-based inkjet ink composition comprising a pigment, a binder resin, and a water-soluble solvent [abstract, 0001].
The water-soluble solvent includes 1,2-hexanediol [0138], which reads on the claimed co-medium, as evidenced by the applicant [0069 spec.].
The pigment is in particle form [0161], reading on the claimed pigment particles.
The binder resin is in microparticle form [0247], reading on the claimed resin particles.
The binder resin includes styrene [Table 3, 0239-0241], which read on the claimed hydrophobic monomer, as evidenced by the applicant [0010 spec.].
Masatoki does not teach anionic monomers comprising one or more types of crosslinkable anionic monomers.
In the same field of endeavor, Arai teaches a water-based inkjet ink set comprising an ink composition and an overcoat liquid [0013, 0186]. The ink composition contains resin particles [0251]; and the resin contains styrene [0273, 0289] and bis(methacryloxyethyl) phosphate (BMEP) for improving dispersion stability and aggregating properties [0278, 0281].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add BMEP in Arai’s resin composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in an inkjet ink composition. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07. It also would be obvious to add BMEP for the benefit of improving dispersion stability and aggregating properties.
The BMEP reads on the claimed anionic monomers comprising one or more types of crosslinkable anionic monomers, as specified in claims 7, 8.
Regarding claim 2-3, Arai teaches that the overcoat liquid comprises resin particles comprising a polymerization product of reactants comprising a first constitutional unit derived from a monomer having at least one group selected from a phosphonic acid group and a salt of a phosphonic acid group such as bis(2-methacryloyloxyethyl) acid phosphate [0076] (BMEP), and a second constitutional unit including styrene [0097, 0111]. Resin particles A-5 in Table 1 contains Solution A which comprises 8.3 g of emulsifying agent and 27.7 g of BMEP; and Solution B which comprises 110 g of styrene and 30 g of 2-ethylhexyl acylate [0495].
The ratio of solution B/A is 0.2 [Table 1]. Thus, the total amount of BMEP in the resin particles is 43 wt%, as calculated by the examiner, meeting the claimed “a total amount of polymerized crosslinkable anionic monomers in the resin particles is at least about 1 weight% and a total amount of polymerized anionic monomers in the resin particles is at least about 15 weight%” in claim 2, and “a total amount of polymerized crosslinkable anionic monomers in the resin particles is at least about 3 weight% and a total amount of polymerized anionic monomers in the resin particles is at least about 20 weight%” in claim 3.
The examiner submits that since the overcoat is part of the inkjet set composition and its resin composition is substantially identical to the resin composition in the ink composition (both contains styrene and BMEP), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to the same ratio of BMEP in the overcoat in the ink composition.
Regarding claims 4-6, Masatoky teaches that the pigment surface is coated with a pigment dispersing resin (polymers) [0085, 0087]; and the pigment includes magenta pigment [0056, 0078].
Regarding claims Regarding claims 9-14, the limitations include all those listed in claims 1-8 and are addressed above.
Regarding claim 15, Masatoky teaches that the resin comprises styrene as stated above, and further comprises methacrylic acid [Table 3, 0239-0242].
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Masatoky teaches that the water-soluble organic solvent includes 1,2-hexanediol as stated above, and further includes propylene glycol and glycerol [0138, 0133].
Regarding claim 17, Masatoky teaches that the amount of pigment is preferably 0.5 to 10% by mass relative to the total amount of the water-based ink [0076], overlapping the claimed from about 4 weight% to about 10 weight%; the amount of binder resin respect to the total amount of the ink is preferably 1 to 15% by mass [0116], overlapping the claimed from about 1 weight% to about 5 weight%; and the amount of the water-soluble solvent is preferably 1 to 30% by mass relative to the total amount of the inkjet ink [0147], overlapping the claimed at least about 2 weight%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762