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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US 10513613 B2) in view of Gouda (WO2023120202A1, with US 2026/0167836 A1 cited as English language equivalent). Ishii (EP 4450571 A1, attached) is cited as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Harada teaches a pigment composition suitable for inkjet inks, including Pigment Yellow 155, a polymer, and a wax (col. 2, lines 34-39; claim 10). Pigment Yellow 74 may also be included in the composition (claim 9). Pigment Yellow 74 may be used in amounts of 1-200 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of Pigment Yellow 155 (col. 9, lines 52-54). This range permits Pigment Yellow 155 to make up 50-99 mass% of the total pigment, satisfying the limitation of claim 6.
Considering claims 2-4, Harada is silent as to using the wax in particle form in the composition. In the same field of endeavor, Gouda teaches use of oxidized polyethylene wax particles having an average particle size in the range of 10-200 nm, in amounts of 0.1-5 mass% of the total composition, or 1.6-500 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the total content of pigment and dye (p. 6-7, [0100], [0104]-[105]). Gouda particularly suggests use of Aquacer 515 oxidized polyethylene wax, but does not specify its acid value (p. 6, [0103]). Ishii clarifies that Aquacer 515 has an acid value of 5 mgKOH/g (p. 9, [0063]). 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 composition of Harada with the wax particles of Gouda, in the amounts taught by Gouda, to arrive at the claimed invention and to achieve an ink having excellent image fastness while easily achieving sufficient ejection stability, as taught by Gouda (p. 7, [0105]).
Regarding claim 5, Harada in view of Gouda remains as applied to claim 1 above. Taking Pigment Yellow 155 as P1 and Pigment Yellow 74 as P2, and the oxidized polyethylene wax of Gouda as W, the prior art values can be applied to the relationship of formula (1) in instant claim 5. The amounts of P1, P2, and W taught by Harada in view of Gouda result in a total mass ranging from 102.62 to 1900 parts by mass. P1 will therefore be present in amounts ranging from 5.26 to 97.4 mass%. P2 will be present in amounts ranging from 0.974 to 10.5 mass%. W will be present in amounts ranging from 1.58 to 78.9 mass%. These values satisfy the relationship of formula (1) across the entire range taught by Harada in view of Gouda.
Regarding claim 7, Harada in view of Gouda remains as applied to claim 1 above. The total pigment taught by the combined prior art will range from 101 parts by mass to 300 parts by mass, while the total wax ranges from 1.62 to 1500 parts by mass. These values result in pigment to wax ratios ranging from 101:1.62 to 300:1500, or from 62.3:1 to 1:5. These prior art ranges overlap the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Gouda, and further in view of Kiuchi (EP 3284771 B1, attached).
Regarding claims 8-9, Harada in view of Gouda remains as applied to claim 1 above. Harada teaches that the Pigment Yellow 155 must have a residual solvent content of 500 ppm or less before incorporation into the ink (col. 9, lines 52-54). However, Harada is silent as to the organic solvent content of the final ink. Gouda teaches that any water-soluble organic solvent known to be useful for inkjet inks may be included in amounts up to 60 mass% of the total solvent, alongside at least 40 mass% water, in an aqueous medium that may occupy 30-90 mass% of the entire ink composition (p. 4, [0073]-[0074]). In the same field of endeavor, Kiuchi teaches that one such solvent known in the inkjet printing art is isobutyl alcohol, which has an SP value 11.1 (p. 19, [0060]). 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 solvent of Gouda, in the amounts taught by Gouda, with the composition of Harada to arrive at the claimed invention, and to adjust the viscosity of the composition, as taught by Gouda (p. 4, [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the isobutyl alcohol of Kiuchi for use as the solvent of Gouda, in the composition of Harada in view of Gouda, to arrive at the claimed invention, and because of the art-recognized suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Gouda, and further in view of Zheng (Zheng et al., Vibrational Spectroscopy 39 (2005) 157-162, attached).
Regarding claims 10-11, Harada in view of Gouda remains as applied to claim 1 above. Harada teaches that a surfactant may be added to the composition, but does not specify which surfactants or amounts are suitable (col. 11, lines 26-27). Gouda teaches that block copolymers of polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol are suitable for use in amounts ranging from 0.001 to 5 mass% of the total composition (p. 7, [0112]; p. 8, [0120]). These amounts, taken in conjunction with the 0.1-5 mass% of wax particles taught by Gouda, satisfy the requirements of formula (3) in instant claim 11 (p. 6-7, [0100]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the surfactant of Gouda, in the amount taught by Gouda, for use in the composition of Harada to arrive at the claimed invention, and to easily improve the leveling properties of the composition, as taught by Gouda (p. 8, [0120]).
Gouda does not limit the structure of the polyethylene glycol-polypropylene glycol block copolymer that may be used. One such block copolymer is Pluronic L64, taught by Zheng as having PEO-PPO-PEO structure with 40 wt% PEO content, that reads on formula (2) of claim 10 where a=c=13 and b=30 (p. 158). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the block copolymer of Zheng for use as the surfactant of Gouda, in the composition of Harada, to arrive at the claimed invention and because of the art-recognized suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Gouda, and further in view of Watanabe (US 7405245 B2).
Regarding claims 12-13, Harada in view of Gouda remains as applied to claim 1 above. Harada and Gouda are silent as to use of the ink in a cartridge having a storage portion. In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches an ink cartridge containing an aqueous inkjet ink composition, as well as teaching that it is known in the inkjet recording art to conduct a recording process of ejecting ink through fine nozzles (recording heads) to deposit them onto a recording medium (col. 1, lines 24-29; col. 2, lines 13-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the ink cartridge and inkjet recording method of Watanabe for use with the composition of Harada in view of Gouda to arrive at the claimed invention, and because of the art-recognized suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob Jones can be reached at (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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights