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 Objections
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following reasons:
With respect to claim 10, line 8, the term “than” should be replaced with “then.”
With respect to claim 12, second-to-last line, “a proceed” should have “a” removed.
With respect to claim 13, in the second-to-last line, there should be an “and” before “said nonionic surfactant” to indicate additive combination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1,
In line 3, the scope of the term “mainly” is not clear.
In part (B), the “weight percentage” of anti-scratch hardener and slow-drying agent is 10:1 (a ratio) is put into the barrel and in part (C) the scratch-resistant hardener and slow-drying agent are placed into the barrel “in a specific ratio.” It is unclear whether the ratio of (B) or the “specific ratio” of (C) is controlling.
In part (C), it is unclear if the basis of the specific ratio is based on weight or volume or something else.
In part (F), the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
With respect to claim 2, line 4, it is unclear how high is “too high.”
With respect to claims 2, 5-7, the term “about” regarding pH is indefinite because it is unclear how “about” extends the scope of “8.” Also, it is unclear whether the claim language within brackets or parentheses are mandatorily present. Lastly, the term “said material” (last line of each claim) lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 8, it is unclear how slow is “slowly,” how high is “high,” or how quick is “quickly.” Also, in the last line, the term “the product” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 9, it is unclear what the “24 predetermined weight units” relates to compared to the defoaming agent or to the water-based printing ink or when the “solid content of 24%” is present.
With respect to claim 10, line 5, it us unclear how low is “too low.” Also, before the last step of “then proceed to step (G)”, “and” should be inserted in order to make clear that all the steps are required.
With respect to claim 11, line 3, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
With respect to claim 12, it is unclear how low is “too low” or how high is “too high.”
With respect to claims 3, 4, 7, 11 and 13-16, they are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the claim from which they depend.
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW ‘683 (TW 202033683, machine translation) in view of TW ‘926 (TW 202222926, machine translation) and Dong (US 2022/0213322).
With respect to claims 1, 11, 13, and 14, TW ‘683 discloses a method for manufacturing environmentally friendly water-based ink for use on plastic films (abstract) comprising steps of putting a color paste into a barrel and mixing at 2000-4000 rpm (reads on claimed step A), adding anti-scratch hardening agent and a slow-drying agent in batches (corresponds to claimed step B), adding an anti-scratch hardening agent and a slow-drying agent in a specific ratio (reads on claimed step C), adding a diluent (reads on claimed scratch-resistant and chemical-resistant resin) and extended stretching (reads on claimed wear-resistant wetting resin) (reads on claimed step D), adding a defoaming agent for 20-40 minutes (corresponds to claimed step E), adding a thickener for 50-70 minutes (corresponds to claimed step F), putting a wetting agent for 50-70 minutes (corresponds to claimed step G), adding a film-forming agent for 20-40 minutes (corresponds to claimed step H), adjusting pH to 8-10 (reads on claimed step I), and filtering the ink and packing the ink into barrels (reads on claimed step J) (page 3-5 of machine translation, Steps 11-18).
TW ‘683 fails to disclose that the slow-drying agent of claimed steps B and C is composed of potassium siliconate and water, that the thickener of claimed step F is composed of a polyether polyurethane resin solution, that the wetting agent of claimed step G is composed of a tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol + 1,2-propanediol, or that the film-forming agent of claimed step H is composed of a mixture of solvent and nonionic surfactant.
TW ‘534, like TW ‘683 discloses water-based printing ink applied to plastic films prepared by a series of steps of adding colorant, a slow drying agent, a scratch resistant-enhancing hardener, a defoaming agent, a wetting agent, and a film-forming agent to a barrel and measuring and adjusting pH before filtering to form the water-based print ink (abstract). TW ‘534 preferably adds potassium monomethyl silicate as slow drying agent; 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol and 1,2-propanediol as wetting agent; a thickener that includes 3-12% ethylene glycol butyl ether, 2-8 % monoethylene glycol phenyl ether, 23-27 % a polyester urethane, and 50-75% water; and a nonionic surfactant and coco polyether (i.e., coconut fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene) as film forming agent (page 3, 8th full paragraph).
Given that both TW ‘683 and TW ‘926 are drawn to aqueous ink formulations which both comprise a color paste, anti-scratch hardener, a slow-drying agent, wetting agent, and defoaming agent and further given that TW ‘926 discloses suitable materials for these functional ingredients, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the ingredient specifically taught by TW ‘926 in the method taught by TW ‘683. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
The combination of TW ‘683 and TW ‘926 fails to explicitly disclose (i) the ratio of 10:1 of anti-scratch hardener to slow-drying agent or (ii) that the defoaming agent of claimed step E is a modified polysiloxane containing fumed silica.
With respect to (i), TW ‘926 discloses that the ratio of adhesion-promoting resin to slow drying agent is 10:1 and that increasing anti-scratch hardener dissipate reactive agglomeration (page 4, 2nd full paragraph).
While TW ‘926 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of anti-scratch hardener to slow-drying agent of 10:1, it clearly teaches adjusting the amount of hardener, and therefore the ratio of hardener to slow-drying agent, to dissipate agglomeration. It is the examiner’s position that the ratio of hardener to slow-drying agent is a result effective variable because changing it will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate ratio of hardener to slow-drying agent, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results.
With respect to (ii), Dong discloses an aqueous dispersion and teaches that a suitable defoamer includes a polyether siloxane copolymer containing fumed silica (paragraph 0073).
Given that TW ‘683 discloses a process including mixing together known ingredients and further given that Dong teaches additives for composition within the same field of endeavor as TW ‘683, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to a suitable defoamer such as a polyether siloxane copolymer containing fumed silica.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, TW ‘683 teaches adding a diluent if the viscosity of the anti-scratch hardening agent, slow-drying agent, and pigment is too high (page 4, first full paragraph) and that a diluent is prepared by same as claimed process (page 4, third full paragraph).
With respect to claim 3, TW ‘926 teaches adding a potassium siliconate as the slow-drying agent but fails to disclose the amount of it in the solid content or the solid content. Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize only one slow-drying agent (i.e., 100% of the solids).
Also, it is the examiner’s position that the amount of solid content is a result-effective variable because changing it will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate solid content of the slow-drying agent, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results, i.e., an appropriate solid content to readily add and mix with the other ingredients.
With respect to claims 4-6, TW ‘683 teaches that the anti-scratching hardening agent is prepared by same steps as claimed process (page 4, second full paragraph). While TW ‘683 does not disclose two anti-scratch hardeners, case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disclose two anti-scratch hardeners having the same or close densities.
With respect to claim 8, TW ‘683 teaches that its stretching agent (i.e., claimed wear-resistant wetting agent) is prepared by steps like presently claimed (page 4, 6th full paragraph).
With respect to claim 9, neither TW ‘683 nor Dong discloses the solids content of the defoaming agent, however, such is readily adjusted to include claimed amount given that the defoamer is added to an aqueous dispersion, wherein the part of the aqueous dispersion is associated with the defoamer.
With respect to claim 10, TW ‘683 teaches that its thickener is added based on viscosity cup and is steps like presently claimed (page 4, 8th full paragraph).
With respect to claim 12, TW ‘683 teaches that its film-forming agent is added with steps like presently claimed (pages 4-5, paragraph starts on page 4 and stops on page 5).
With respect to claim 15, TW ‘683 teaches the steps like present claimed (page 5, first full paragraph).
With respect to claim 16, TW ‘683 teaches the steps like presently claimed (page 5, second full paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights