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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/14/2026.
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 5-8 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein a percentage content of the glycol ether compound is at least 6.0% parts by mass and no greater than 18.0% parts by mass” (emphasis added).
Claim 6 recites “wherein a percentage content of the surfactant is at least 0.3% parts by mass and no greater than 1.2% parts by mass” (emphasis added).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the water-soluble organic solvent further includes a glycol compound, and a percentage content of the glycol compound is at least 35.0% parts by mass and no greater than 45.0% parts by mass” (emphasis added).
Claims 5, 6 and 8 are indefinite because it is unclear what the claimed mass percentages are based upon, e.g., the total mass of the inkjet ink, the total mass of the water-soluble organic solvent, etc.
For this Office Action, the claims have been interpreted wherein the mass percentages of claims 5, 6 and 8 are based upon the total mass of the inkjet ink. Clarification is required.
The term “poorly absorbent” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “poorly absorbent” is 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 8 is indefinite because the claim recites that the water-soluble organic solvent further includes a “glycol compound.” Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, already requires that the water-soluble organic solvent includes a glycol ether compound, i.e., a glycol compound. This creates confusion as to what additional glycol compounds are required by claim 8. Clarification is required.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osanishi et al, US 2021/0355333 A1 (Osanishi) in view of Kamoto et al, US 2004/0069183 A1 (Kamoto).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Osanishi teaches an inkjet ink comprising a first carbon black, a second black (i.e., pigments), and water (Osanishi; [0008]). FIGURE illustrates an example of the relationship between dynamic surface tension (γ) and surface age (t), wherein measurement of the dynamic surface tension is obtained by the maximum bubble pressure method. The dynamic surface tension (γ) of the ink decreases with an increase in the surface age (t). A dynamic surface tension (γeq) corresponds to a static surface tension of the ink. A dynamic surface tension (γeq) at a surface age of 1000 milliseconds is the dynamic surface tension (γ) of the ink in a state in which the dynamic surface tension (γ) is in a state of equilibrium (Osanishi; Figure and [0043]).
Given that Osanishi discloses that the ink is in a state of equilibrium at a surface age of 1000 milliseconds, thereby corresponding to the static surface tension of the ink, it would have been clear to those skilled in the art that the “dynamic” surface tension of the inks of Osanishi would not change beyond a surface age of 1000 milliseconds. Therefore, the dynamic surface tension (γeq) of the inks of Osanishi at a surface age of 1000 milliseconds would be equivalent to the dynamic surface tension measured at a surface age of 10000 milliseconds (γ10000) as claimed.
In order to suppress wet spreading of the ink in a recording medium and increase image density while maintaining ease of droplet cohesion of the ink, it is preferable that the dynamic surface tension of the ink at a surface age of 10 milliseconds as measured by the maximum bubble pressure method is at least 39.0 mN/m and no greater than 43.0 mN/m (Osanishi; [0046]). When the 10-millisecond surface tension is at least 39.0 mN/m and no greater than 43.0 mN/m, droplets of the ink directly after ink ejection from nozzles tend to become spherical. As a result, the droplets of the ink easily cohere (Osanishi; [0047]).
Dynamic surface tensions of the ink at a surface age of 10 milliseconds of at least 39.0 mN/m and no greater than 43.0 mN/m overlaps in scope with the claimed dynamic surface tension Ɣ10 at a surface age of 10 milliseconds of at least 40.0 mN/m of claim 3.
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).
Osanishi teaches that the 10-millisecond surface tension of the ink can be easily adjusted within a specific range when the ink further contains a surfactant and a water-soluble organic solvent (Osanishi; [0050] and [0051]). The water-soluble organic solvent may be, e.g., a glycol compound or polyhydric ether alcohol, wherein the polyhydric ether alcohols are glycol ethers as claimed, and wherein glycols include, e.g., triethylene glycol (Osanishi; [0071]-[0073]). The ink may contain triethylene glycol monobutyl ether as claimed in claim 4 (Osanishi; [0061]).
Osanishi exemplifies inkjet ink compositions comprising a pigment dispersion, triethylene glycol monobutyl ether (i.e., a water-soluble organic solvent, wherein the water-soluble organic solvent includes a glycol ether compound, and wherein the glycol ether compound includes triethylene glycol monobutyl ether of claim 4), water, and Surfynol (i.e., a surfactant) as claimed (Osanishi; [0166]; Table 3 Examples 1-5 and Table 10, Example 24).
Osanishi exemplifies inkjet ink compositions comprising a pigment dispersion, organic solvents such as triethylene glycol, water, and Surfynol (i.e., a surfactant), wherein the inks have a surface tension at 10 ms of 41.0, 40.5 and 40.0 mN/m respectively, i.e., at least 40.0 mN/m as claimed in claim 3 (Osanishi; Table 6, Examples 11-13).
Osanishi teaches that preferably, the 10-millisecond surface tension is greater than the 50-millisecond surface tension in order to suppress wet spreading of the ink in a recording medium (Osanishi; [0048]).
Osanishi further teaches that the dynamic surface tension of the exemplified inks (C-1) to (C-7), (D-1) to (D-4), (E-1) to (E-8), and (F-1) to (F-4)) was measured using a dynamic surface tensiometer (bubble pressure dynamic surface tensiometer, “BP100”, product of KRUSS) in an environment at a temperature of 25° C (Osanishi; [0130]). The static surface tension of each ink was almost equivalent to the dynamic surface tension (γeq) of the ink at a surface age of 1000 milliseconds (emphasis added) (Osanishi; [0131]).
Osanishi does not explicitly teach wherein a difference between a dynamic surface tension Ɣ10 of the inkjet ink at a surface age of 10 milliseconds and a dynamic surface tension Ɣ10000 of the inkjet ink at a surface age of 10000 milliseconds (i.e., the static surface tension of the ink of Osanishi) is no greater than 3.4 mN/m.
With respect to the difference, Kamoto teaches an ink composition prepared in such a manner that a difference between a dynamic surface tension (mN/m) measured by a maximum bubble pressure method at a temperature of 24 to 26oC and a static surface tension (mN/m) is within a range from 0 to 7 (mN/m) (Kamoto; Abstract). The inks satisfy the equation below, wherein the dynamic surface tension can be greater than the static surface tension because their difference is greater than or equal to zero:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kamoto; [0150]).
In ink jet recording apparatus and methods, new surfaces of the ink compositions are generated in succession at the discharge port provided at the front end of the ink chamber in the ink head, whereby the motion of the ink composition is fast and the dynamic surface tension has a large influence. On the other hand, in the ink chamber, after the discharge of the ink composition, the ink composition is replenished by a capillary force from an ink tank by a volume corresponding to a decrease by the discharge, so that the motion of the ink composition is slow and can be regarded in a static state whereby the static surface tension has a large influence. Thus, since both the dynamic surface tension and the static surface tension exert influences at the discharge, it is necessary to consider a balance of the dynamic surface tension and the static surface tension in order to achieve stable discharge of the liquid droplets of the ink composition. Also, during image recording the ink composition shows a fast motion at the moment of landing of the liquid droplet onto the recording material, but becomes gradually slower thereafter. In this manner the surface tension changes from a dynamic state to a static state. If the dynamic surface tension and the static surface tension have a large difference, the ink composition requires a long time for drying on the recording material, thereby generating a blotting. By maintaining the difference of the dynamic surface tension and the static surface tension within a certain range, it is rendered possible to obtain an inkjet ink composition with excellent discharge stability while suppressing blotting on the recording material, and which provides a recorded image of a high quality (Kamoto; [0020]).
The inks may comprise water, a surfactant, a glycol ether and/or a polyhydric alcohol, and a pigment (Kamoto; [0025-0030] and [0033-0034]).
Kamoto is analogous art as it teaches the importance of minimizing the difference between the dynamic surface tension and the static surface tension of an inkjet ink, wherein the ink comprises a pigment, a glycol ether water-soluble organic solvent, water, and a surfactant.
In light of the motivation provided by Kamoto to maintain the difference between the dynamic surface tension and the static surface tension of an inkjet ink to within a certain range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the difference between the dynamic surface tension at a surface age of 10 milliseconds and the static surface tension at a surface age of 1000 milliseconds of the inkjet inks of Osanishi, such that the difference is within the range of less than or equal to 7 mN/m, in order to obtain an inkjet ink composition with excellent discharge stability while suppressing blotting on the recording material, and providing a recorded image of a high quality.
Further, because the inks of Osanishi reach equilibrium at a surface time of 1000 milliseconds, those skilled in the art would expect:
(surface tension of the ink at 10 msec - surface tension of the inks at 1000 msec)
for the inks of Osanishi, would be equal to:
(surface tension of the ink at 10 msec - surface tension of the inks at 10000 msec)
required by the inks as claimed (and as explained on page 5 above).
A difference between the surface tension of the ink at 10 msec and the static surface tension of the inks (including at 10000 msec as claimed) of less than or equal to 7 mN/m, overlaps in scope with the claimed range wherein a difference between a dynamic surface tension of the inkjet ink at a surface age of 10 milliseconds and a dynamic surface tension of the inkjet ink at a surface age of 10000 milliseconds is no greater than 3.4 mN/m.
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).
Further, it has long been held an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 2, Osanishi in view of Kamoto are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Osanishi teaches in order to suppress wet spreading of the ink in a recording medium and increase image density while maintaining ease of droplet cohesion of the ink, it is preferable that the dynamic surface tension of the ink at a surface age of 10 milliseconds as measured by the maximum bubble pressure method is at least 39.0 mN/m and no greater than 43.0 mN/m (Osanishi; [0046]).
Osanishi does not explicitly teach wherein the dynamic surface tension Ɣ10000 at a surface age of 10000 milliseconds of the inkjet ink is at least 38.0 mN/m as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Kamoto teaches the static surface tension of the ink is within a range from 20 to 50 mN/m. Static surface tensions less than 20 mN/m result in excessively high permeability, whereby the ink composition spreads laterally on an absorbent recording material, forming an image with an unclear contour. Static surface tensions exceeding 50 mN/m reduce the permeability into the recording material, thereby deteriorating the drying property. Also the ink composition shows a lowered wetting property on the inner wall of the ink chamber to hinder the supply of the ink composition into the ink chamber, whereby the ink composition cannot smoothly fill the ink chamber and be discharged stably (Kamoto; [0024]).
In light of the motivation provided by Kamoto to adjust the static surface tension of an inkjet ink, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the static surface tension of the inks of Osanishi (i.e., equivalent to surface tension Ɣ10000 at a surface age of 10000 milliseconds as claimed) to within the range of 20 to 50 mN/m as taught by Kamoto, while maintaining a dynamic surface tension of the ink at a surface age of 10 milliseconds of at least 39.0 mN/m and no greater than 43.0 mN/m as required by Osanishi, and a difference between the dynamic and static surface tensions of the ink of less than or equal 7 as required by Kamoto, in order to achieve an inkjet inks which produce images with a clean contour, have good drying properties, and that can smoothly fill the ink chamber and be discharged stably.
Static surface tensions of from 20 to 50 mN/m overlap in scope with dynamic surface tension Ɣ10000 at a surface age of 10000 milliseconds of at least 38.0 mN/m as claimed.
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).
Regarding claim 5, Osanishi in view of Kamoto are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Osanishi teaches in order to produce an ink having a shear viscosity, dynamic surface tensions, and a relaxation time within the respective specific ranges, the content ratio of the water-soluble organic solvent is preferably at least 0.5% by mass and no greater than 50% by mass relative to the mass of the ink, more preferably 5%-50% by mass, and further preferably at least 10%-50% by mass (Osanishi; [0079]), wherein the water-soluble organic solvent may be a glycol ether as claimed (Osanishi; [0073]).
Osanishi further exemplifies inks which comprise the preferred triethylene glycol monobutyl ether as claimed in amounts ranging from 8-10% by mass, based on the total mass of the ink (Osanishi; table 3, Examples 1-5).
Glycol ether mass percents of 8-10% fall within the claimed range of wherein a percentage content of the glycol ether compound is at least 6.0% parts by mass and no greater than 18.0% parts by mass, based on the total mass of the inkjet ink.
Regarding claim 6, Osanishi in view of Kamoto are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Osanishi teaches the content of the surfactant is preferably at least 0.5% by mass and no greater than 1.0% by mass relative to the mass of the ink, more preferably at least 0.5% by mass and no greater than 0.8% by mass, and still further preferably at least 0.5% by mass and no greater than 0.6% by mass (Osanishi; [0059]). These surfactant amounts fall within the claimed range of wherein a percentage content of the surfactant is at least 0.3% parts by mass and no greater than 1.2% parts by mass, based on the mass of the inkjet ink.
Regarding claim 7, Osanishi in view of Kamoto are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Osanishi in view of Kamoto do not explicitly teach wherein the inkjet ink is used for image formation on a poorly absorbent recording medium as claimed.
However, the recitation in the claims that the inkjet ink is “used for image formation on a poorly absorbent recording medium” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art, and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Osanishi in view of Kamoto disclose inkjet inks as presently claimed, it is clear that the inkjet inks of Osanishi in view of Kamoto would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for image formation on a poorly absorbent recording medium, as presently claimed and as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Osanishi in view of Kamoto are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Osanishi teaches the water-soluble organic solvent is preferably at least one (preferably one to five, more preferably three or four) selected from the group consisting of a glycol compound, a polyhydric alcohol ether compound, a lactam compound, and glycerin. The water-soluble organic solvent is preferably at least one (preferably one to five, more preferably three or four) selected from the group consisting of 1,3-propanediol, propylene glycol, 1,3-butanediol, triethylene glycol monomethyl ether, triethylene glycol, glycerin, triethylene glycol monobutyl ether, 2-pyrrolidone and 3-methyl-1,5-pentanediol, i.e., wherein the water-soluble organic solvent may further include a glycol compound as claimed (Osanishi; [0077]).
Osanishi teaches in order to produce an ink having a shear viscosity, dynamic surface tensions, and a relaxation time within the respective specific ranges, the content ratio of the water-soluble organic solvent is preferably at least 0.5% by mass and no greater than 50% by mass relative to the mass of the ink, more preferably 5%-50% by mass, and further preferably at least 10%-50% by mass (Osanishi; [0079]).
These water-soluble organic solvent ranges overlap in scope with the claimed range wherein a percentage of the glycol compound is at least 35.0% parts by mass and no greater than 45.0% parts by mass of the total mass of the ink.
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).
Given that Osanishi discloses the water-soluble organic solvents that overlap the presently claimed water-soluble organic solvents, including those which comprise a mixture of a glycol ether and a glycol compound in amounts of 35.0% parts by mass and to 45.0% parts by mass of the total mass of the ink as claimed, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mixtures of a glycol ether and a glycol compound in an amount of 35.0% parts by mass and to 45.0% parts by mass in the inks of Osanishi in view of Kamoto, which is both disclosed by Osanishi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ozawa, US 2021/0403741 A1, teaches an inkjet ink wherein at a temperature of 25℃, a dynamic surface tension at a surface age of 50 milliseconds is at least 38.0 mN/m and no greater than 40 mN/m, and a static surface tension of the inkjet ink is at least 34 mN/m and no greater than 36 mN/m; para. [0019]. The ink contains 15-30 wt.% of a specific water-soluble organic solvent which may be triethylene glycol monobutyl ether; para. [0035-0036]. The inks also contain a pigment, water and a surfactant as claimed; para. [0021], [0060] and [0072].
Ozawa, US 2014/0198150 A1, teaches an inkjet ink wherein the dynamic surface tension at the surface lifetime of 10 ms is preferably from 34 mN/m to 50 mN/m, and more preferably from 43 mN/m to 55 mN/m; para [0038]. The inks may comprise pigments, glycol ethers, surfactants and water as claimed; para. [0057], [0059] and [0079].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 /CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights