METHOD FOR PRODUCING PRINTED TEXTILE ITEM

DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendments In response to the amendment received on 07/21/2026: • Claims 1-15 are currently pending. The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. 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 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie (US-20200207998-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Fujie”) in view of Okuda et al. (US-20190061382-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Okuda”). Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, and 15, Fujie teaches a method for producing a printed textile item (see Fujie at para. 0016, teaching an inkjet textile printing method) comprising: • applying a pretreatment liquid to a fabric (see Fujie at para. 0016, teaching the method as including a step of applying a process liquid to a fabric; also see Fujie at para. 0199, teaching their example process liquids as being applied to a T-shirt), and • applying a white ink using an inkjet method to the fabric to which the pretreatment liquid has been applied (see Fujie at para. 0016 and 0165, teaching the method as including a step of inkjet printing an ink to the fabric on top of where the process solution was applied; also see Fujie at para. 0203, teaching their example inks as being inkjet printed to the “process liquid-applied region of each T-shirt;” also see Fujie at para. 0077, teaching the ink pigment may include a white pigment), wherein • the pretreatment liquid contains a polyvalent metal salt, a surfactant, and water (see Fujie at para. 0121 and 0123, teaching the process liquid may comprise a multivalent metal salt; also see Fujie at para. 0145, teaching the process liquid may contain water; also see Fujie at para. 0149, teaching the process liquid may contain a surfactant), • the white ink contains a white inorganic pigment, resin particles, a surfactant, and water (see Fujie at para. 0077, teaching the ink pigment may include a white pigment, such as titanium dioxide; also see Fujie at para. 0096, teaching the ink to contain resin particles; also see Fujie at para. 0103, teaching the ink to include a surfactant; also see Fujie at para. 0094, teaching the ink to contain water), • an amount of the white pigment, relative to a total mass of the white ink, is within a range from 5.0 to 15.0% by mass (see Fujie at para. 0080, teaching the content of the pigment to range from 1 to 30 mass% in the ink; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05), • a total amount of the white inorganic pigment and the resin particles, relative to the total mass of the white ink, is within a range from 20 to 35% by mass (28 to 32% by mass, regarding claim 15) (see Fujie at para. 0080, teaching the content of the pigment to range from 1 to 30 mass% in the ink; also see Fujie at para. 0101, teaching the content of the resin particles to range from 1 to 20 mass% in the ink; accordingly, Fujie necessarily teaches a total content of pigment and resin particles to range from 2 to 50 mass% (1 mass% pigment minimum + 1 mass% resin minimum = 2 mass% total minimum; 30 mass% pigment maximum + 20 mass% resin maximum = 50 mass% total maximum); this range of 2 to 50 mass% overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05); and • an amount of the polyvalent metal salt in terms of an amount of active component, relative to a total mass of the pretreatment liquid, is 10% by mass or more (20% by mass or more, regarding claim 7) (see Fujie at para. 0125, teaching the multivalent metal salt may be calcium nitrate; also see Fujie at para. 0136, teaching the content of the cationic compound (i.e., the multivalent metal salt) in the process liquid may range from 0.1 to 40 mass%; this range overlaps the claimed ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05; further, even if the concentration range taught by Fujie refers to the total overall component rather than simply the active component, the concentration range would still overlap the claimed range, e.g., for calcium nitrate tetrahydrate (see Table 2 of Fujie at para. 0198, showcasing calcium nitrate tetrahydrate as a suitable multivalent metal salt); for instance, for calcium nitrate tetrahydrate, a concentration of 0.1 to 40 mass% would include 0.07 to 27.8 mass% of active component, which still overlaps the claimed ranges); • an amount of the pretreatment liquid applied to the fabric is within a range from 5 to 300 g/m2 (15 to 200 g/m2, regarding claim 9) (see Fujie at para. 0167, teaching the adhesion amount of the process liquid to the fabric may range from 100 to 3,000 mg/inch2, which is equivalent to a range of 155 g/m2 to 4650 g/m2; this range of 155 to 4650 g/m2 overlaps the claimed ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05); • an amount A g/m2 of the resin particles of the white ink applied to the fabric and an amount B g/m2 of the polyvalent metal salt of the pretreatment liquid applied to the fabric satisfy a relationship of A2/B ≥ 50 (≥ 80, regarding claim 5) (≥ 100, regarding claim 6) (see Fujie at para. 0168, teaching the adhesion amount of the cationic compound in the process liquid to the fabric may be 7.5 to 40 µmol/cm2; also see Fujie at para. 0125, teaching calcium nitrate as a suitable multivalent metal salt, i.e., cationic compound; since the molar mass of calcium nitrate is 164 g/mol, Fujie necessarily teaches an amount of calcium nitrate adhered to the fabric may range from 12.3 g/m2 to 65.6 g/m2 (7.5 µmol calcium nitrate • 10-6 = 7.5E-6 mol of calcium nitrate; 7.5E-6 moles of calcium nitrate • 164 g/mol calcium nitrate = 0.00123 g calcium nitrate; 0.00123 g/cm2 of calcium nitrate • 10000 (g/m2)/(g/cm2) = 12.3 g/m2 of calcium nitrate minimum; 40 µmol calcium nitrate • 10-6 = 40E-6 mol of calcium nitrate; 40E-6 moles of calcium nitrate • 164 g/mol calcium nitrate = 0.00656 g calcium nitrate; 0.00656 g/cm2 of calcium nitrate • 10000 (g/m2)/(g/cm2) = 65.6 g/m2 of calcium nitrate maximum); thus, A in Fujie ranges from 12.3 to 65.6 g/m2, in the case calcium nitrate is used; also see Fujie at para. 0101, teaching the ink may contain 1 to 20 mass% of resin particles; also see Fujie at para. 0174, teaching the adhesion amount of the ink to the fabric may range from 1.5 to 6 mg/cm2, which is equivalent to a range of 15 g/m2 to 60 g/m2; thus, the adhesion amount of the resin particles of Fujie necessarily range from 0.15 g/m2 to 12 g/m2 (15 g/m2 adhesion amount of ink minimum • 0.01 ratio of resin particles in ink minimum = 0.15 g/m2 adhesion amount of resin particles minimum; 60 g/m2 adhesion amount of ink maximum • 0.2 ratio of resin particles in ink maximum = 12 g/m2 adhesion amount of resin particles maximum); thus, B in Fujie ranges from 0.15 to 12 g/m2; accordingly, the value of A2/B in Fujie necessarily ranges from 12.6 to 28,689 ((12.3)2 A-value minimum/12 B-value maximum = 12.6 A2/B minimum; (65.62) A-value maximum/0.15 B-value minimum = 28,689 A2/B maximum); this range of 12.6 to 28,689 overlaps values that satisfy the claimed inequalities, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05). While Fujie teaches the method outlined above, Fujie fails to explicitly teach the white ink as being applied by a wet-on-wet method to the fabric to which the pretreatment liquid has been applied, wherein the white ink is applied to the fabric within a time period within a range from 0.1 to 200 seconds from the application of the pretreatment liquid (regarding claim 11), wherein, at a time the white ink is applied, a residual amount of a volatile fraction of the pretreatment liquid on the fabric is 90% by mass or more (regarding claim 12). However, Okuda teaches a recording method including adhering a treatment solution for coagulating a component of an ink composition to a recording medium, followed by adhering a white ink composition to the recording medium (see Okuda at para. 0008). Okuda further teaches the coagulant in the treatment solution may include a polyvalent metal salt, such as a calcium salt, water, and a surfactant, (see Okuda at para. 0092, 0103, 0114). Moreover, Okuda teaches the ink may include a white pigment, such as titanium oxide, a resin, such as a urethane resin, a surfactant, and water (see Okuda at para. 0137, 0144, 0156, and 0159). Furthermore, Okuda teaches for the white-ink adhering step, a wet-on-wet method is preferably employed, in which the white ink is adhered in a state where the volatile component remaining of the treatment solution is equal to or greater than 40 mass%, and where the white ink is applied 1 to 120 seconds after the treatment solution is adhered (see Okuda at para. 0169). Additionally, Okuda teaches that by using the wet-on-wet method, it is possible to reduce a recording time (see Okuda at para. 0168). Further, according to Okuda, by applying the wet-on-wet method, coagulation of the white color material is more easily caused, thus reducing blurring between the treatment liquid and the white ink and causing more favorable background concealment (see Okuda at para. 0168 and 0170). Okuda also teaches the recording medium may include a cloth (see Okuda at para. 0080). Fujie teaches their ink jet printing system “may” include a drying step, thus not necessitating the process liquid to be dried (i.e., not teaching away from excluding a drying step) (see Fujie at para. 0169). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the white ink of Fujie via a wet-on-wet method like that of Okuda, in which the white ink is adhered in a state where the volatile component remaining of the treatment solution is equal to or greater than 40 mass%, and where the white ink is applied 1 to 120 seconds after the treatment solution is adhered. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce a recording time, and to more easily cause coagulation of the white color material, thus reducing blurring between the treatment liquid and the white ink and causing more favorable background concealment (see Okuda at para. 0168-0170). Following the above modification, the method of modified Fujie includes a white ink application time of 1 to 120 seconds after the adhesion of the process liquid, which falls completely within the claim 11 range. Further, the method of modified Fujie includes a process liquid having a volatile fraction of 40 mass% or more, which overlaps the claim 12 range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 2, see Fujie at para. 0080, teaching the content of the pigment to range from 1 to 30 mass% in the ink; also see Fujie at para. 0101, teaching the ink may contain 1 to 20 mass% of resin particles; accordingly, Fujie necessarily teaches a ratio of the resin particles relative to the pigment to range from 0.033 to 20 (1% resin particles minimum/30% pigment maximum = 0.033 ratio min; 20% resin particles maximum/1% pigment minimum = 20 ratio max); this range of 0.033 to 20 overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claims 3 and 8, see Fujie at para. 0098-0099, teaching the resin may be a polyester polyurethane resin. Regarding claim 4, see Fujie at para. 0097, teaching the resin may be used alone/singly in the ink of Fujie; accordingly, Fujie necessarily teaches embodiments where their resin component contains only a polyester polyurethane resin, or 100% of the resin, which falls within the claimed range. Regarding claim 10, see Fujie at para. 0174, teaching the adhesion amount of the ink to the fabric may range from 1.5 to 6 mg/cm2, which is equivalent to a range of 15 g/m2 to 60 g/m2; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 14, see Fujie at para. 0080, teaching the content of the pigment to range from 1 to 30 mass% in the ink; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asakawa et al. (US-20220064472-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Asakawa”). Regarding claim 13, while Fujie as modified by Okuda teaches the method according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Fujie fails to explicitly teach a temperature of the surface of the fabric, following application of the pretreatment liquid and until the application of the white ink, to be 40 °C or lower. However, Asakawa teaches an ink set including a treatment liquid composition and ink composition which may be applied onto a cloth (see Asakawa at para. 0186-0187). Asakawa further teaches the ink and the treatment liquid compositions to be applied onto a printing medium with a surface temperature of 20 to 50 °C, and when the compositions are printed on a medium having such a temperature, the treatment liquid can form uniform coating films on the printing medium, increasing rub resistance and image quality, and the heat impact on the ink jet head is reduced (see Asakawa at para. 0144). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the surface temperature of the recording medium at the time of printing both the ink and the treatment liquid to range from 20 to 50 °C in the method of modified Fujie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order for the treatment liquid to form uniform coating films on the printing medium, to increase rub resistance and image quality, and to reduce the heat impact on the ink jet head (see Asakawa at para. 0144). It necessarily follows that if the surface temperature of the recording medium is 20 to 50 °C at the time of printing both the treatment liquid and the ink composition, the surface temperature falls within such a range between the applications of the two compositions. This range of 20 to 50 °C overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth below. First, Applicant argue the amendments overcome the previous grounds of rejection, specifically the rejection using Example 14 of Fujie (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 6-7). The Examiner agrees that Example 14 of Fujie no longer reads on the claimed invention; however, the broad disclosure of Fujie in view of Okuda still does, see the claim 1 rejection above. Moreover, Applicants argue Fujie does not address the cracking problem addressed by the present invention, which uses a wet-on-wet method (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 7). Applicants further argue Fujie teaches a wet-on-dry method, and there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill to employ a wet-on-wet method to achieve the beneficial effects alleged by Applicants (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 7). However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons. Nothing in the claims is directed to reduced cracking. Further, given the method of modified Fujie is the same as that claimed, it necessarily follows that the method produces the beneficial results alleged by Applicants. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Applicants’ data is insufficient to establish unexpected results or criticality in this regard (see below). Finally, there is motivation to use a wet-on-wet method in the method of Fujie, namely, to reduce a recording time, and to more easily cause coagulation of the white color material, thus reducing blurring between the treatment liquid and the white ink and causing more favorable background concealment (see Okuda at para. 0168-0170). Next, Applicants argue that even if a wet-on-wet method was utilized in the method of Fujie, one of ordinary skill would have no guidance as to how the amounts should be selected, in combination with the claimed A2/B relationship, to address the cracking problem unique to a wet-on-wet process (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 8). Applicants then point to their examples to demonstrate criticality with respect to their claimed (i) total pigment+resin content of 20-35 mass% in the white ink, (ii) total pigment content of 5-15 mass% in the white ink, and (iii) the A2/B relationship where A2/B ≥ 50 (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 8). However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons. Applicants’ data in their specification does not establish criticality with respect to the claimed method. First, the Examples in Applicant’s specification are not fully commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See MPEP § 716.02(d). Applicants use in their Examples only two types of polyvalent metal salts (despite the claims suggesting for a much more vast variety of metal salts), only a single active polyvalent metal salt concentration of 25 wt% (despite the claims suggesting a wide range of amounts ranging from greater than 10 wt%, including 15%, 20%, 30%, and more), and only two pretreatment liquid application amounts of 60 and 120 g/m2 (despite the claims suggesting a wide range of amounts ranging from 5 to 500 g/m2, e.g., 50, 200, 300, or 400 m2/g). As such, it is unclear whether Applicants alleged showing of unexpected results applies to the varying embodiments for the method included in claim 1. Furthermore, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP § 716.02(d)(II). For the three limitations (i)-(iii) pointed to by Applicants in their argument, none sufficiently include sufficient comparative examples. For (i), the comparative examples do not test pigment+resin content above 35 wt%. For (ii), the comparative examples do not test a pigment content below 5 wt%. For (iii), Applicants only test A2/B values of 5 and 9, with no values near the 50 g/m2 minimum range sufficient to establish criticality of such a range (i.e., a failed result at 9 g/m2 provides poor indication as to the criticality at 50 g/m2, given the distance between the two values). As such, doubts are raised as to the criticality of the claimed method and the limitations (i)-(iii). Finally, Fujie does not need to address the same problem as Applicants, i.e., cracking, in order to make the wet-on-wet method modification obvious. Additionally, “obviousness does not require absolute predictability, but at least some degree of predictability is required.” See MPEP 2143.02. Here, the wet-on-wet method provides other advantages as outlined by Okuda (see claim 1 rejection above). One of ordinary skill would reasonably be drawn to using a wet-on-wet method in order to obtain said advantages, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so given the similarities between the ink and treatment liquid of Fujie and Okuda. Consequently, a prima facie case of obviousness is established. Examiner’s Suggestions In the interest of expedited prosecution, the Examiner proposes a potential amendment to overcome the current grounds of rejection. It is noted that this amendment is suggested following a brief, cursory glance of the specification and the prior art, and there is no guarantee such amendment won’t read on the current references upon a more detailed review. Moreover, further search and consideration would be required if such amendment is added (i.e., allowability is NOT guaranteed following the incorporation of such amendment). Lastly, Applicants may use all or none of such suggestion – it is merely intended as a helpful starting point for potential future amendments, if desired. If Applicants wish to clarify or discuss the below suggested amendment further, the Examiner invites Applicants to telephone for an interview. Amendment Suggestion 1 (support found at para. 0084 of Applicant’s specification): “…an amount of the pretreatment liquid applied to the fabric is within a range from 5 to 300 g/m2, an amount of the white ink applied to the fabric to which the pretreatment liquid has been applied is within a range from 100 to 500 g/m2, an amount A g/m2 of the resin particles of the white ink…” Examiner’s Note: the above amendment would appear to overcome Fujie, given Fujie teaches an ink adhesion amount of 1.5 to 6 mg/cm2, or 15 to 60 g/m2; the range of 15 to 60 g/m2 falls outside the above suggested amended range of 100 to 500 g/m2. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 5 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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. /JEFFREY EUGENE BARZACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1731 /AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731