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 .
2. This office action is responsive to the application Nº 18/388,605 filed on November 10th, 2023 in which claims 1-23 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS have been considered.
Drawings
4. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 11/10/2023 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
7. Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the evaporation rate of the ink composition is no more than 30 mg per minute”. This limitation is indefinite because evaporation rates are expressed in mass per surface area per time. It is unclear what surface area Applicant’s evaporation rate corresponds to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Robertson et al. (US Pub. Nº 2012/0026257).
11. Regarding independent claim 1: Robertson et al. disclosed an inkjet ink composition ([0009], line 1) comprising:
a) a binder resin ([0009], lines 1-2);
b) a colorant ([0009], lines 1-2); and
c) a solvent mixture ([0009], line 1) containing:
1) a C1-C3 alkyl ester of C1-C3 carboxylic acid ([0010], lines 1-3 and lines 6-7 as disclosed in the specifications of the instant application);
2) a C3-C7 ketone ([0010], lines 1-5 as disclosed in the specifications of the instant application); and
3) optionally a C2-C3 alkyl alcohol ([0010], lines 1-4 as disclosed in the specifications of the instant application).
12. Regarding claim 2: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, which does not contain methyl ethyl ketone ([0010], lines 1-5; when one of acetone, methyl n-propyl ketone or cyclohexanone is used as the ketone).
13. Regarding claim 3: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the C1-C3 alkyl ester of C1-C3 carboxylic acid is a C1-C3 alkyl ester of C2-C3 carboxylic acid or is a C2-C3 alkyl ester of C1-C3 carboxylic acid ([0010], lines 1-3 and lines 6-7 as disclosed in the specifications of the instant application).
14. Regarding claim 4: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the C1-C3 alkyl ester of C1-C3 carboxylic acid is from about 10% to about 65% by weight of the ink composition ([0013], lines 1-2 and [0014], lines 2-5).
15. Regarding claim 5: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the C2-C3 alkyl alcohol if present, is from about 1% to about 40% by weight of the ink composition ([0014], lines 4-5).
16. Regarding claim 6: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the C3-C7 ketone is from about 5% to about 60% by weight of the ink composition ([0014], lines 2-3).
17. Regarding claim 7: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 4, wherein the C1-C3 alkyl ester of C1-C3 carboxylic acid is selected from the group consisting of methyl acetate (MeOAc), ethyl acetate (EtOAc), isopropyl acetate (iPrOAc), and n-propyl acetate (nPrOAc) ([0010], lines 1-3 and lines 6-7).
18. Regarding claim 8: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 7, wherein the C1-C3 alkyl ester of C1-C3 carboxylic acid is selected from the group consisting of EtOAc and iPrOAc ([0010], lines 1-3 and lines 6-7).
19. Regarding claim 9: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 5, wherein the C2-C3 alkyl alcohol is selected from the group consisting of ethanol (EtOH), n-propanol (nPrOH) and isopropanol (iPrOH) ([0010], lines 1-4).
20. Regarding claim 10: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 6, wherein the C3-C7 ketone is selected from the group consisting of acetone, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), diethyl ketone (DEK), methyl isopropyl ketone (MIPK), methyl n-propyl ketone (MPK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), methyl n-amyl ketone (MAK), methyl isoamyl ketone (MIAK), cyclopentanone, and cyclohexanone ([0010], lines 1-4).
21. Regarding claim 11: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 10, wherein the C3-C7 ketone is selected from the group consisting of acetone, DEK, MIPK, and MPK ([0010], lines 1-4).
22. Regarding claim 12: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein if water is present, it is present at less than 5% by weight of the ink composition ([0013], lines 5-6).
23. Regarding claim 13: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the binder resin is present at from about 1% to about 25% by weight of the ink composition ([0028], lines 1-2).
24. Regarding claim 14: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 13, wherein the binder resin is selected from the group consisting of acrylic resins, styrene acrylic resins, silicon resins, polyesters, polyurethane resins, polyamide, styrene-allyl alcohol resins, vinyl resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose esters, cellulose ethers, aldehyde resins, ketone resins, epoxy resin, rosin esters, hydrocarbon resins, phenolic resins, poly(hydroxystyrene) resin, terpene phenolic resins ([0024], lines 2-10).
25. Regarding claim 15: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the colorant is present at from about 1% to about 15% by weight of the ink composition ([0019], lines 1-2).
26. Regarding claim 16: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the colorant is a conductive solvent soluble dye, or a mixture of conductive solvent soluble dyes ([0016], lines 1-13; solvent black 27 and solvent black 29 (as disclosed in the specifications) are conductive metal complex inks).
27. Regarding claim 17: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the colorant is selected from C.I. Solvent Black 29, C.I. Solvent Black 27, C.I. Solvent Red 122, and combinations thereof ([0016], lines 1-13).
28. Regarding claim 19: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the dry time of a printed mark on nonporous material is less than 5 seconds ([0035], lines 1-6).
29. Regarding claim 20: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1, wherein the ink is formulated for continuous inkjet printing ([0012], lines 1-3 and lines 10-13).
30. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Robertson et al. (US Pub. Nº 2012/0026257).
31. Regarding independent claim 23: Robertson et al. disclosed an inkjet ink composition ([0009], line 1) comprising:
a) a binder resin ([0009], lines 1-2);
b) a colorant ([0009], lines 1-2); and
c) a solvent mixture ([0009], line 1) containing:
1) EtOAc or iPrOAc ([0010], lines 1-3 and lines 6-7);
2) acetone, DEK, MIPK, or MPK ([0010], lines 1-5), and
3) optionally EtOH, nPrOH, or iPrOH ([0010], lines 1-4), wherein the ink composition does not contain detectable MEK ([0010], lines 1-5; when one of acetone, methyl n-propyl ketone or cyclohexanone is used as the ketone).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US Pub. Nº 2012/0026257), in view of Zou et al. (JP 2002-529572).
35. Regarding claim 18: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1.
Robertson et al. are silent about wherein the calculated evaporation rate for the solvent mixture is between about 2.0 and 4.0 based on individual published empirical values relative to n-butyl acetate.
Zou et al. disclosed an inkjet ink composition ([0003], lines 1-2), comprising water ([0006], line 5), a binder resin ([0006], lines 5-6), a colorant ([0009], line 15), and a mixture of volatile organic solvents ([0009], lines 9-14), wherein the calculated evaporation rate for the solvent mixture is between about 2.0 and 4.0 based on individual published empirical values relative to n-butyl acetate (see Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zou et al. with those of Robertson et al. by combining the solvent as necessary to obtain the desired evaporation rate in order to reduce the drying time as disclosed by Zou et al. ([0007], lines 4-5).
36. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US Pub. Nº 2012/0026257), in view of Weng et al. (US Pub. Nº 2020/0332136).
37. Regarding claim 21: Robertson et al. disclosed the inkjet ink composition of claim 1.
Robertson et al. are silent about wherein the bulk ink resistivity of the inkjet ink composition is 1800 Ohm-cm or lower at 25 0C.
Weng et al. disclosed an inkjet ink composition ([0003], line 1), comprising a binder resin ([0008], line 2), a colorant ([0009], line 2), a solvent mixture ([0012], line 1) including a ketone, an alcohol, an acetate ([0037], lines 1-2), wherein the bulk ink resistivity of the inkjet ink composition is 1800 Ohm-cm or lower at 25 0C ([0034], lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weng et al. with those of Robertson et al. by adjusting the content of each element of the ink composition to obtain the above disclosed resistivity in order to improve the stability of the ink composition as disclosed by Weng et al. in paragraph [0035].
Conclusion
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
39. 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.
40. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHEN MEIER can be reached at (571)272-2149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
41. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853