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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s claims filed December 20, 2023. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are 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.
The terms “dark-colored” and “light-colored” in claim 2 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “light” and “dark” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 3 is also rejected for being dependent upon claim 2 and inheriting the same deficiency.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (WO 2022/182358) in view of Saito (US 2016/0060810) as evidenced by chemical book ethanol document (https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB2362508.htm).
Guo teaches an image recording method comprising treating a polyester fabric (paragraph 0132) or which is a black or grey (dark colored chemical fiber, paragraph 0143) with a first layer of composition comprising water, no solvent and a silicone surfactant is applied (paragraphs 0038, 0041,0042 and 0047). Guo teaches a second layer fixer fluid is applied over the first layer and a third white ink layer is applied over the fixer layer and drying by heating the fabric at 100 to 180°C after application of all three layers (paragraphs 0145, 0157-0159). Guo teaches the fixer fluid comprises water, 4-30% water soluble solvent such as ethanol (water -soluble with a boiling point of 78°C as evidenced by chemical book ethanol document; paragraph 0065,0069).
Guo doesn’t teach the flocculant of the second layer.
Saito teaches the layer that fixes the ink contains 1-15 parts by mass of a flocculant which is an inorganic salt such as calcium chloride (paragraphs 0025- 0026,0028) to interact with the ink and thicken it and prevent bleeding (paragraph 0025). Saito teaches the ink layer comprises the white colorant (paragraph 0049,0059), water-soluble solvent (paragraph 0066), resin emulsion (paragraph 0050,0052) and a silicone surfactant (0067,0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the image recording methods of Guo by adding flocculant such as inorganic salts of calcium chloride at the claimed concentrations as Saito teaches these flocculants in overlapping concentration ranges provide the layer below the ink fixing properties when the ink is applied such that the ink interacts with the flocculant and becomes thickened and prevent bleeding of the ink. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the image recording medium of Guo by using an ink comprising a colorant, water-soluble solvent, resin emulsion and silicone surfactant as Saito teaches white pigments are conventionally used as colorants in inks, resin emulsions stick between the pigment and the fabric and improve the adhesiveness of the pigment, water and water-soluble solvent combinations provide the ink with the appropriate viscosity and the silicone surfactant improves the wettability. Using known conventional components in ink fixing layers and in inks applied to those layers is obvious for the benefit of effectively attaching the ink composition to the fabric in a durable manner without image bleeding.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (WO 2022/182358) in view of Saito (US 2016/0060810) as evidenced by chemical book ethanol document (https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB2362508.htm).and further in view of Sunaoshi (US 2022/0195223).
Guo, Saito and chemical book ethanol document are relied upon as set forth above.
Guo, Saito and chemical book ethanol document do not teach the first treatment liquid contains a thickener.
Sunaoshi teaches pretreatment layers conventionally contain thickening additives (paragraph 0146).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the image recording methods of Guo, Saito and chemical book ethanol document by adding a thickening agent to the first treatment liquid as Sunaoshi teaches that thickening agents are conventionally added to pretreatments. It would be beneficial to add a thickener to control the viscosity of the treatment liquid and therefore provide a more controlled application of the first liquid composition to the fabric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights