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 with traverse of CLAIMS 1-9 in the reply filed on 24 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that NO UNDUE BURDEN. This is not found persuasive because of the SEPARATE STATUS IN THE ART DUE TO CLASSIFICATIONS. Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected INVENTION, there being no allowable generic or linking claim
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2022-115211 was received on 04 September 2023 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 July 2023 and 08 December 2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 18 July 2023 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tobiyama (JP 2019/171840A), using a machine translation.
With regard to Claim 1, Tobiyama discloses an image forming method (Abstract), comprising:
applying water-based ink to a first region of an object to be subjected to image forming by an inkjet method (Abstract, Lines 5-6; ¶0007, aqueous pigment ink);
applying a resin powder to a second region of the object (¶0007, heat melting powder applied to entire surface of the ink; ¶0009, resin powder), the first region and the second region at least partially overlapping each other (¶0007); and
heating the first region and the second region to thermally fix the water-based ink and the resin powder to the object (¶0007, Lines 10-12; ¶0012-0014; 0020),
wherein the water-based ink comprises a pigment and at least one of a water-soluble resin and a resin emulsion (¶0012-0014).
With regard to Claim 3, Tobiyama further discloses wherein the water-soluble resin and the resin emulsion are each a urethane resin, a polyester resin, an acrylic resin or a combination thereof (¶0009).
With regard to Claim 9, Tobiyama further discloses a method for manufacturing an image-formed article (Abstract), comprising forming an image by the image forming method according to claim 1, to obtain the image-formed article (Abstract).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobiyama, in view of Ueki et al. (US PGPub 2006/0061641 A1), hereinafter Ueki.
With regard to Claim 5, Tobiyama discloses wherein an applied amount of the resin powder is an appropriate amount (¶0025), but does not explicitly disclose wherein an applied amount of the resin powder is 0.1 mg/cm2 or more.
The secondary reference of Ueki discloses wherein an applied amount of the resin powder is 0.1 mg/cm2 or more (¶0060, amount is not less than 0.1 g/m² to not more than 30 g/m²).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applied amount of Ueki, with the method of Tobiyama, in order to improve on image quality by preventing inter-color bleeding, as taught by Ueki (¶0060).
With regard to Claim 7, Tobiyama does not explicitly disclose wherein the resin powder is a charged resin powder.
The secondary reference of Ueki discloses wherein the resin powder is a charged resin powder (¶0129, resin powder can be charged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the charged resin powder of Ueki, with the method of Tobiyama, in order to disperse the resin powder statically on the intermediate transfer body, as taught by Ueki (¶0129).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobiyama, in view of Furukawa (US PGPub 2004/0218028 A1).
With regard to Claim 6, Tobiyama does not explicitly disclose wherein the resin powder comprises a thermoplastic resin.
The secondary reference of Furukawa discloses wherein the resin powder comprises a thermoplastic resin (¶0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the thermoplastic resin of Furukawa, with the method of Tobiyama, in order to stably fix the resin, and selected as appropriate, as taught by Furukawa (¶0053).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 2 is that applicants claimed invention includes an image forming method wherein a ratio (X/Y) of an applied amount (X) of the water-based ink to an applied amount (Y) of the resin powder is 0.04 or more and 240 or less. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 4 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: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 4 is that applicants claimed invention includes an image forming method wherein a total solid content of the water-soluble resin and the resin emulsion relative to an amount of the water-based ink is 5 mass% or more and 10 mass% or less. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 8 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: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 8 is that applicants claimed invention includes an image forming method wherein heating the first region to thermally fix the water-based ink to the object after the applying of the water-based ink and before the applying of the resin powder, wherein the resin powder is applied by an electrophotographic method so that the second region is 1% or more larger than the first region, and wherein each heating is performed by a non-contact method. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853