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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 05/19/2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for the subject matter of the first group would encompass the search for the subject matter of the remaining group; therefore, search and examination of all groups could be made without serious burden.
This is not found persuasive because the Examiner has sufficiently shown a concurrent examination of the inventions would present a “serious burden”, as set forth on pages 2-4 of the restriction requirement mailed 04/06/2026. Specifically, after the Examiner provides all the inventions, I and II being independent or distinct for the reasons given on pages 2 and 3 of the restriction requirement mailed 04/06/2026, the Examiner has provided reason(s) that there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Given Applicants have not traversed why none of the reasons given above and on page 3 of the restriction requirement mailed 04/06/2026 would not be proper, and given that Applicants have not traversed the Examiner's explanation of all the inventions I and II being independent or distinct for the reasons set forth on pages 2 and 3 of the restriction requirement mailed 04/06/2026, the restriction requirement is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 2, the term “wherein.” appears to be a typographical error with respect to the period. Amending this term to read “wherein” can overcome this objection. 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.
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 1-11 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 1, line 9, is indefinite because the use of parentheses in the claim, i.e., the term“(A/U)”, gives the appearance that the enclosed language is optional. It is suggested to delete the parentheses from line 9 of claim 1 to overcome this rejection.
Claims 2-11, line 1, it is suggested to amend the term “the ink jet ink composition” to “the aqueous ink jet ink composition” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 7, line 3, is indefinite with regard to the term “the content of a dispersion resin” because claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, requires a urethane resin. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the urethane resin of claim 1 reads on the dispersion resin of claim 7, thereby creating confusion as to what the term “dispersion resin” is intended to encompass. For example, does claim 7 require the urethane resin to be present in an amount less than 0.2% by mass? The claims have been interpreted wherein the term “dispersion resin” is other than the urethane resin of claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 is indefinite because the triple bond between the carbon atoms of the acetylene glycol-based surfactant of formula (1) is unclear, i.e., the bond is blurred and does not clearly represent a triple bond. Correction is required.
Claim 8, lines 7-8, are indefinite because the use of parentheses in the claim gives the appearance that the enclosed language is optional. It is suggested to delete the parentheses from lines 7 and 8 of claim 8 to overcome this rejection.
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, 3-4, 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, CN 201408784A (Yang) taken in view of evidence by Teramoto, US 2014/0146109 A1 (Teramoto) and Evonik, Safety Data Sheet for SURFYNOL ® 104 H (Evonik).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Yang. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6 and 8, Yang teaches an inkjet ink with improved gloss, wherein the ink contains a pigment to polymer weight ratio of 1:1 to 1.2:1, and wherein the polymer is a water soluble polyurethane as claimed or an emulsion-type polyurethane (Yang; page 2, lines 26-29). The polymer is present in an amount of 1.0-3.5% by mass (Yang; page 2, lines 37-38).
The inks may include 0-0.5% by weight of a defoaming agent, wherein defoaming agents include Surfynol 104H (Yang; [page 3, lines 23-24). As is evidenced by Teramoto, Surfynol 104H has an HLB equal to 4, which falls within the claimed range of 6 or less (Teramoto; [0048]). As is evidenced by Evonik, Surfynol ® 104H is an acetylenic diol, specifically 2,4,7,9-tetramethyldec-5-yne-4,7-diol (Evonik; page 2, section “3. Composition/information on ingredients”). 2,4,7,9-tetramethyldec-5-yne-4,7-diol is an acetylene-glycol surfactant of formula (1) of claim 8, wherein R1 = R2 = methyl and R3 = R4 = an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms.
0-0.5% by weight of the acetylene-glycol Surfynol 104H overlaps in scope with the claimed content A of the acetylene glycol-based surfactant, relative to the total mass of the ink jet ink composition, of from 0.1% to 0.8% by mass 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).
Yang exemplifies an ink composition comprising 25wt% black pigment dispersion Cab-O-Jet 300 (i.e., a self-dispersed black pigment of claim 6), 7.82wt% of a water-soluble polyurethane, 1.20wt% Surfynol 104H, and water (Yang; Table on page 4, Example 2).
Yang teaches that the weight percent of the polyurethane in the resin solution is 40 wt% (Yang; page 3, lines 38-41). Therefore, the ink of Example 2 contains:
7.82 wt% water-sol. polyurethane solution * 0.4 = 3.1wt% water sol. polyurethane
Therefore, the ratio (A/U) of the content A of the acetylene glycol-based surfactant to the content U of the water-soluble urethane resin in Example 2 is:
1.2 (A) / 3.1 (U) = 0.39.
The ink of Example 2 of Yang differs from the claimed inks only in that the ratio A/U does not fall within the claimed range of 0.3 to 2.3.
However, as discussed above, Yang teaches that the amount of polyurethane polymer may range from 1.0-3.5% by mass (Yang; page 2, lines 37-38), and the amount of Surfynol 104H antifoaming agent may range from 0-0.5% by weight (Yang; [page 3, lines 23-24). Therefore, it is clear that the inks of Yang include inks with A/U ratios that overlap in scope with those as claimed. For example, a composition comprising 1.2% polyurethane (U) and 0.4% Surfynol 104H (A) would have a content ratio A/U = 0.4/1.2 = 0.33, which falls within the claimed range of 0.3 to 2.3.
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).
Further, “[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).
Regarding claim 4, Yang is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Yang teaches that the polyurethane may contain a carboxyl group or a sulfonic acid group (Yang; page 2, line 33).
Given that Yang discloses water-soluble polyurethane resins that overlap the presently claimed water-soluble polyurethane resins, including those which comprise an acid group as claimed, such as sulfonic acid, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a water-soluble polyurethane having an acid group, which is both disclosed by Yang and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Yang is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Yang does not require a content of a dispersion resin. For example, the ink of Example 2 does not contain a “dispersion resin” as claimed (Yang; page 4, Example 2 of Table), and therefore falls within the claimed “less than 2% by mass” of a dispersion resin, relative to the total mass of the inkjet ink composition.
Regarding claim 10, Yang is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The ink of Example 2 comprises triethylene glycol, i.e., an organic solvent comprising a polyol (Yang; page 4, Example 2 of Table). Applicant’s specification at para. [0076] discloses that triethylene glycol has a standard boiling point of over 280°C as required by claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Yang is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The exemplified inks are used to print on ordinary roll paper, i.e., an absorptive recording medium as claimed (Yang; page 4, lines 9-10).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanoue et al, US 2008/0022887 A1 (Tanoue) taken in view of evidence by Willoughby, US 5,154,361 (Willoughby).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Tanoue teaches a black ink comprising water, carbon black (i.e., a coloring material), and a water-soluble polyurethane resin as claimed (Tanoue; [0011]).
The water-soluble polyurethane resin is present in the ink in an amount not less than 0.2% by weight and not more than 10% by weight as a resin solid matter. Within this range, adherability and a viscosity of the black ink composition can be effectively reduced, and a surface defect on a recorded matter can be avoided or suppressed. In addition, phase shift and golden gloss can be effectively avoided or suppressed simultaneously (Tanoue; [0079]). In a first black ink, the content is more preferably not less than 0.5% by weight and not more than 2% by weight. When the content is not less than 0.5% by weight, a resin layer having a resin film of a suitable thickness can be imparted to an ink layer formed, and golden gloss can be avoided or suppressed. When the content is not more than 2% by weight, it is easy to retain a viscosity of the first black ink composition in a suitable range, and discharge stability can be maintained. Further preferably, the content is not more than 1.5% by weight (Tanoue; [0080]).
These weight percentages, including the preferred range of 0.5-1.5 wt% of water-soluble polyurethane polymer, overlap in scope with the claimed content U of the water-soluble urethane resin relative to the total mass of the ink jet ink composition from 0.1% to 0.8% by mass of claim 2.
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).
The black ink compositions may contain a surfactant to improve permeability of the black ink composition into a recording medium, and prevent blurring. Preferred surfactants include acetylene glycol-based surfactants represented by the general formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
290
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein 0≤m+n≤50, and each of R1, R2, R3 and R4 is independently an alkyl group, preferably an alkyl group of a carbon number of 6 or less (Tanoue; [0137]). The compounds of formula (1) overlap in scope with the compounds of formula (1) of claim 8 when m+n=0 and R1, R2, R3 and R4 are independently an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms.
Preferred compounds of formula (1) include, e.g., 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol, Surfynol 104, 82, 465, 485 and TG (all available from Air Products and Chemicals Inc.), and Orphin STG, and Orphin E1010 (all are trade name manufactured by Nisshin Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.). Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0030] discloses that 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol has an HLB of 6 or less as claimed. Further, 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol is an acetylene-glycol of formula (1) of claim 8, wherein R1 = R2 = methyl and R3 = R4 = an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms.
As is evidenced by Willoughby, Surfynol 104 is an acetylene-glycol based surfactant (i.e., 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol) and has an HLB = 5, which falls within the claimed range of less than 6 (Willoughby; col. 3, lines 52-53). Therefore, Tanoue teaches at least the acetylene glycol-based surfactants 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol and Surfynol 104 which have an HLB as claimed (claim 1) and a structure of formula 1 as claimed (claim 8).
When the surfactant content is less than 0.01% by weight, the surface activity effect is not sufficiently obtained, and when the content exceeds 10% by weight, deteriorated discharge due to precipitation of a crystal, formation of a liquid crystal, or reduction in stability of the pigment is recognized (Tanoue; [0144]). Surfactant amounts of 0.01-10wt% overlap in scope with the claimed wherein the content A of the acetylene glycol-based surfactant relative to the total mass of the ink jet ink composition is from 0.1% to 0.8% by mass (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).
Given that Tanoue discloses the ink jet ink compositions that overlap the presently claimed ink jet ink compositions, including those which comprise a colorant, a water-soluble polyurethane polymer in the claimed amounts, and an acetylene glycol-based surfactant having a HLB value of 6 or less in the claimed amounts, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate inks comprising a colorant, a water-soluble polyurethane polymer in the claimed amounts, and an acetylene glycol-based surfactant having a HLB value of 6 or less in the claimed amounts, which are both disclosed by Tanoue and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Tanoue does not explicitly teach wherein the ratio (A/U) of the content A of the acetylene glycol-based surfactant to the content U of the water-soluble urethane resin is from 0.3 to 2.3 as claimed.
However, it has long been 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) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the mass percentages, and hence the ratio (A/U) of the content A of the acetylene glycol-based surfactant to the content U of the water-soluble urethane resin, including over the presently claimed, in order to avoid or suppress surface defects on the recorded matter; avoid or suppress phase shift and golden gloss; ensure a resin film of a suitable thickness; retain a suitable viscosity, and maintain discharge stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Tanoue is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The water-soluble polyurethane resin may be obtained by reacting a diisocyanate compound and a diol compound, wherein the diol compound may have an acidic group such as a carboxylic acid group and a sulfonic acid group (Tanoue; [0070]).
Given that Tanoue discloses water soluble polyurethane resins that overlap the presently claimed water soluble urethane resins, including water soluble polyurethane resins having an acid group, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the water soluble polyurethane resins having an acid group, which are both disclosed by Tanoue and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Tanoue is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. From a viewpoint of suppression of a surface defect and golden gloss or phase shift on a recorded matter, an acid value of the polyurethane resin is preferably 10 to 300, further preferably 20 to 100. The acid value is a mg amount of necessary KOH for neutralizing a 1 g of a resin (Tanoue; [0076]). Acid values of 20-100 mgKOH/g overlap in scope with the claimed acid values of 40-90 mgKOH/g.
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 claims 6-7, Tanoue is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tanoue teaches the self-dispersion carbon black is carbon black which can be dispersed and/or dissolved in an aqueous medium without using a dispersant. “Dispersed and/or dissolved in an aqueous medium without a dispersant" refers to the state where carbon black is stably present in an aqueous medium without using a dispersant for dispersing carbon black (i.e., a self-dispersion pigment of claim 6) (Tanoue; [0119]).
Because the carbon black pigment of Tanoue are self-dispersed without the use of a dispersion resin, and because Tanoue does not require the addition of a “dispersion resin” to the compositions, i.e., less than 0.2% by mass of a dispersion resin as claimed in claim 7.
The carbon black may also be dispersed in an aqueous medium with a dispersant, such as with a polymer dispersant and a surfactant (i.e., a resin-dispersed pigment of claim 6) (Tanoue; [0131]). When a dispersant is used, it is used in a range of 0.01-10% by weight, more preferably 0.1-5% by weight. When a content of the dispersant is less than 0.01% by weight, the surface activity effect is not sufficiently obtained and, when the content exceeds 10% by weight, the case where this becomes a cause for deteriorated discharge due to precipitation of a crystal, formation of a liquid crystal, or reduction in stability of a pigment, is recognized (Tanoue; [0132]).
Tanoue exemplifies inks comprising 0.1wt% water-soluble resin dispersant (Tanoue; Table 13, page 28, Example K16), and 0.15wt% water-soluble resin dispersant (pages 30-31, Table 21, Inks C1-3 and C7-9; and page 38, Table 35, Examples 11-12 and 15-16). 0.1-0.15wt% resin dispersant falls within the claimed range of less than 0.2% by mass of a dispersion resin, relative to the total mass of the ink jet ink composition, as claimed (claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, Tanoue is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tanoue teaches the inks may comprise titanium oxide and iron oxide in addition to carbon black, i.e., inorganic oxide particles as claimed (Tanoue; [0118]).
Given that Tanoue discloses inkjet inks that overlap the presently claimed inkjet inks, including those which comprise inorganic oxide particles such as titanium oxide and iron oxide, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the inks comprising titanium oxide or iron oxide, which are both disclosed by Tanoue and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Tanoue is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The polyurethane resin compositions comprise a water-soluble organic solvent containing one or two or more kinds of diols, and one or two or more kinds of triols. The triols preferably contain glycerin (Tanoue; [0035]). The exemplified inks of Tanoue comprise glycerin (see, for example, pages 23-24, Table 1, Examples K1-K9). Applicant’s specification at para. [0076] discloses that glycerin has a standard boiling point of over 280°C as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Tanoue is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tanoue teaches as a substrate, paper having ink absorbability is preferred (i.e., used for an absorptive recording medium as claimed) (Tanoue; [0179]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rejections using these references would be cumulative to the above rejections.
Sarkisian et al, US 2007/0219290 A1, discloses inkjet ink compositions comprising Cabot polymer-attached pigment, Avecia polyurethane resin (U), Surfynol SEF surfactant with an HLB:4-5 (A), Dantocol DHE organic solvent, and water, wherein the ratio of A/U = 0.5 as claimed (Example 3, [0051], Table 4), and A/U = 1.00 as claimed (Example 6, [0057], Table 7). Although Sarkisian does not explicitly teach that the Avecia polyurethane resin is water-soluble, the polyurethane resin has an acid number of 40-150 and a molecular weight of 3000 to 400000 (see [0046]).
Harvey et al, US 2020/0224050 A1, teaches inkjet inks comprising 0.25-2 wt% of a specific polyurethane binder, the final polyurethane copolymer binder having an acid number from 50 to 100 (see [0010], [0038], [0118]). The ink may contain a surfactant in an amount of from 0.01-2 wt% (see [0078]), wherein surfactants include acetylene glycol surfactants with HLBs as claimed, i.e., Surfynol SE-F and 104 (see [0080]). See the aqueous inks comprising self-dispersed pigment, polyurethane resin, and Surfynol surfactants (see Example 1, [0147], Table 1; and Example 2, [0150], Table 3). The teachings of Harvey et al, US 2020/0263048 A1, are cumulative to the teachings of Harvey et al, US 2020/0224050 A1.
Chun et al, US 2019/0270899 A1, teaches inkjet inks comprising a polyurethane-based binder (Abstract). The acid number of the polyurethane-based binder is from 10-70 mg KOH/g solid resin (para. [0077]). The inks comprise resin dispersed pigments, acetylene glycol surfactants having an HLB of 6 or less (e.g., Surfynol SE-F), water, and organic solvents as claimed (e.g., glycerol) (see Example 5, para. [0230], Table 4).
Rahimi et al, US 2019/0177564 A1, teaches polyurethane binders including a polyurethane polymer which is water soluble/dispersible (para. [0043]). The presence of component (i) assists in the ability of the polyurethane to be dissolved in water after ionization with a base (para. [0064-0065]). Rahimi exemplifies polyurethane dispersions comprising component (i) (Table II). These dispersions are used in aqueous inks comprising a pigment and Surfynol 104 or Surfynol SE-F (i.e., acetylene glycol surfactants having an HLB of 4-5 as claimed) (Table I; Example 1, [0098-0107], Tables III- IV; and Example 2, [0116], Table V).
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