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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in the drawing sheets submitted on 07/24/2024, the figure on page “New Sheet 3/3” should be numbered as “Fig. 4”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding Specification submitted on 7/24/2024:
Page 3, line 29: “an hollow particle component” should read “a hollow particle component”.
Page 8, line 24: “The compositions of the present disclosure includes one or more…” should read “The compositions of the present disclosure include one or more…”
Page 13, line 16: The space in “modifier s” should be deleted.
Page 21, line 12: “Inventive Examples 4-X”. In the subsequent paragraph, the three inventive examples are still named as Ex. 1-3. The applicant should name these examples differently from those in Table 1 and Table 2. For example, they should be named as Ex. 4-6.
Page 21, line 13: “i.e., Ex. Ex.” should read “i.e., Ex.”
Page 21, lines 13-14: “Comp. Ex. A and B”. The two comparative examples should be named differently from those in Table 1 and Table 2, for example, as “Comp. Ex. C and D”.
Page 22: This table misses its caption. It should be “Table 3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0307725 A1, published 10/29/2015; hereinafter “Murakami”).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches an ink composition (Abstract), comprising a hollow particle component (resin beads, [0040]; Ropaque Ultra, Example 1, Table 1) ; a first colorant (titanium oxide as pigment, Example 1, Table 1); a viscosity modifier (MOWIPLAS XW330, as a thixotropic agent, Example 1, Table 1, [0036], [0037]); a humectant (ethylene glycol, Example 1, Table 1); and a solvent (water, Example 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as outlined above and further discloses that the first colorant is present in an amount of about 5 to about 15 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition (titanium oxide, 11 wt%, Example 2, Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as outlined above and further discloses that the viscosity modifier is present in an amount of about 1 to about 10 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition (MOWIPLAS XW330, as a thixotropic agent, 2.0 wt%, Example 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as outlined above and also discloses that the composition further comprises a dispersant present in an amount of about 2 to about 20 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition (Joncryl J-62 as a dispersant, 10.8 wt%, Sample 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as outlined above and also discloses that the composition is included in an ink storage compartment of a writing utensil ([0043], “it can be filled in the ink reservoir of a marker, pen, etc.”).
Regarding claim 9, Murakami teaches a permanent ink composition ([0014]), comprising a hollow particle component (resin beads, [0040]; Ropaque Ultra, Example 1, Table 1) ; a first colorant (titanium oxide as pigment, Example 1, Table 1); a viscosity modifier (MOWIPLAS XW330, as a thixotropic agent, Example 1, Table 1, [0036], [0037]); a humectant (ethylene glycol, Example 1, Table 1); a solvent (water, Example 1, Table 1) and an optional dispersant (Joncryl J-62 as a dispersant, Sample 1, Table 1). Murakami also teaches that by adding a thixotropic agent, thixotropic property can be added to the ink composition ([0036]). Thixotropic property is a type of shear-thinning property, which refers to a decrease in viscosity with increasing shear rate. Therefore, Murakami teaches the limitation that the composition has a first viscosity at a non-shear state and a second viscosity at a shear state, and wherein the second viscosity is less than the first viscosity.
Regarding claim 10, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 9 as outlined above and further discloses that the first colorant is present in an amount of about 5 to about 15 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition (titanium oxide, 11 wt%, Example 2, Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 9 as outlined above and also discloses that the viscosity modifier is present in an amount of about 1 to about 5 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition (MOWIPLAS XW330, as a thixotropic agent, 2.0 wt%, Example 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 9 as outlined above and also discloses that composition comprises about 2 percent to about 20 weight percent dispersant based on a total weight of the composition (Joncryl J-62 as a dispersant, 10.8 wt%, Sample 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 16, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 9 as outlined above and also discloses that the permanent ink composition is included in an ink storage compartment of a writing utensil ([0043], “it can be filled in the ink reservoir of a marker, pen, etc.”).
Regarding claim 17, Murakami teaches an ink composition (Abstract), comprising a hollow particle component (resin beads, [0040]; Ropaque Ultra, Example 1, Table 1) ; a first colorant (titanium oxide as pigment, Example 1, Table 1); a viscosity modifier (MOWIPLAS XW330, as a thixotropic agent, Example 1, Table 1, [0036], [0037]); a humectant (ethylene glycol, Example 1, Table 1); and a solvent (water, Example 1, Table 1). Murakami also teaches that the permanent ink composition is included in an ink storage compartment of a writing utensil ([0043], “it can be filled in the ink reservoir of a marker, pen, etc.”).
Regarding claim 18, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 17 and also discloses that the composition further comprises a dispersant present in an amount of about 2 to about 20 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition (Joncryl J-62 as a dispersant, 10.8 wt%, Sample 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 19, Murakami teaches all the limitations in claim 17 and also discloses that the viscosity modifier is present in an amount of about 1 to about 5 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition (MOWIPLAS XW330, as a thixotropic agent, 2.0 wt%, Example 1, Table 1).
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 3, 7, 11, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0307725 A1, published 10/29/2015; hereinafter “Murakami”) in view of Lahr et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0299529 A1, published 09/24/2020; hereinafter “Lahr”).
Regarding claim 3, the disclosure of Murakami is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Murakami does not expressly teach the hollow particle component is present in an amount of about 20 to about 40 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lahr teaches an ink composition (Abstract) comprising polymer hollow particles wherein the hollow particle component is present in about 1.0 wt % to about 50 wt %, preferably 10 wt% to about 50 wt%, more preferably 20 wt% to about 50 wt%, and more preferably 30 wt% to about 50 wt%, based on the total weight of the composition (Lahr, [0032]). Specifically, Lahr teaches in an ink composition wherein the hollow particle component is present in amount of 20 wt% based on a total weight of the composition (Lahr, [0048]). Inventive Example 1, Celocor ® AF Opaque Polymer resin (Arkema: 30 wt% hollow spheres in 70 wt% water) 66.8% based on the total weight of the composition. So, hollow spheres wt% = 66.8% * 30% *100% = 20%.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Both Murakami and Lahr are drawn to ink compositions comprising polymer hollow particles. Lahr teaches that the opaque water-based inks including the hollow sphere polymers can match the appearance of opaque inks that include white pigment materials such as titanium dioxide and zinc sulfide (Lahr, [0014]). Advantages provided by the opaque water based inks include significantly reduced ink usage through reduction or elimination of white pigment (e.g., TiO2) content (Lahr, [0016]). Also, Lahr discloses that Inventive Example 1 is comparable to a stored color standard that includes titanium dioxide pigment, which is highly opaque and can hide brown paper stock on which it printed (Lahr, [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murakami to incorporate the teachings of Lahr to provide hollow particles in an amount of about 20 to about 40 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition, and to yield a reasonable expectation of success (opacity).
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure of Murakami is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Murakami teaches that various dyes can be blended, as necessary, to achieve the intended color (Murakami, [0026]). Murakami does not expressly teach an ink composition further comprising a second colorant having a different color from the first color.
However, Lahr teaches an ink composition comprising a colorant, which may be a colorant (e.g., pigment, dye) that emits color in the visible, infrared, and ultraviolet spectrum and mixtures thereof (Lahr, [0012]). Specifically, Lahr discloses an ink composition, Inventive Example 2 (Lahr, [0051]), which comprises hollow particles (Joncryl 633), a first colorant (C Series Yellow 14), a second colorant (Aquasurf Blue 15:3) and a third colorant (GS-1450 Green). The second and the third colorant have different colors from the first colorant, respectively.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murakami to incorporate the teachings of Lahr to include a second colorant, which has a different color from the first colorant, in the ink composition, to achieve the intended color, as recognized by Murakami.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure of Murakami is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Murakami does not expressly teach the hollow particle component is present in an amount of about 20 to about 40 weight percent based on a total weight of the composition. As discussed above in claim 3, the combination of Murakami in view of Lahr teaches all limitations in claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, the disclosure of Murakami is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Murakami teaches that various dyes can be blended, as necessary, to achieve the intended color (Murakami, [0026]). Murakami does not expressly teach an ink composition further comprising a second colorant having a different color from the first color. As discussed above in claim 7, the combination of Murakami in view of Lahr teaches all the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, the disclosure of Murakami is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Murakami teaches that various dyes can be blended, as necessary, to achieve the intended color (Murakami, [0026]). Murakami does not expressly teach an ink composition further comprising a second colorant having a different color from the first color. As discussed above in claim 7, the combination of Murakami in view of Lahr teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0307725 A1, published 10/29/2015; hereinafter “Murakami”) in view of Arisawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 20190338151 A1, published 11/07/2019; hereinafter “Arisawa”).
Regarding claim 4, the disclosure of Murakami is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Murakami discloses that water-soluble organic solvent can be used as an anti-drying agent or wetting agent for the ink (Murakami, [0033]) and the amount of all water-soluble solvent used in the ink composition is 1 to 90 percent by weight, or preferably 5 to 85 percent by weight, relative to all ink composition (Murakami, [0034]). Murakami does not expressly teach the humectant is present in an amount of about 10 to about 20 percent based on a total weight of the composition.
However, Arisawa teaches an ink composition comprising polymer hollow particles (Abstract). The ink composition may contain an organic solvent for suppressing drying or freezing of ink, i.e., a humectant (Arisawa, [0160]), wherein the organic solvent includes glycols such as ethylene glycol (Arisawa, [0162]). The ink composition contains the organic solvent preferably at 5.0 wt% or more and 60.0 wt% or less relative to the total amount of the ink composition (Arisawa, [0163]). Specifically, Arisawa teaches an ink composition Example 1 (Arisawa, [0177]) which comprises ethylene glycol 10.00 wt% and PO20 (nib drying preventing agent, sugar alcohol) 2.00 wt%. Therefore, the total humectant content is 10.00% + 2.00% = 12.00 % based on the total weight of the ink composition.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murakami to incorporate the teachings of Arisawa to provide the humectant in an amount of about 10 to about 20 percent based on a total weight of the composition to suppress drying or freezing of ink, as recognized by Arisawa.
Regarding claim 12, the disclosure of Murakami is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Murakami does not expressly teach that the humectant is present in an amount of about 10 to about 20 percent based on a total weight of the composition. As discussed above in claim 4, the combination of Murakami in view of Arisawa teaches all the limitations in claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/HAOPENG WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights