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 1-7, in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that an undue search burden would not be placed upon the Examiner (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 1). However, this is not found to be persuasive as the two inventions are related to different categories of invention that would require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), thereby resulting in a serious burden. Therefore, the restriction/election requirement is still deemed proper and is made final.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 requirement in the reply filed on 05/29/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are objected to because of the following informality:
• Claims 1 and 7 should be amended to read: “…in high performance liquid chromatography analysis, or HPLC analysis, of the colorant…”
• Claim 2 should be amended to read: “…a content ratio between the glycerol and the glycol, or glycerol:glycol, is 3:2 to 20:3 based…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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, 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akanuma et al. (US-20220154397-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Akanuma”) in view of Koike et al. (US-4689078-A) (hereinafter referred to as “Koike”) and Matsumoto et al. (US-20090324900-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Matsumoto”), with evidence from Ota (US-20060173096-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Ota”) as to the rejection of claims 1-7.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Akanuma teaches an ink jet ink composition (see Akanuma at para. 0012 and 0028, teaching a violet ink for use in inkjet textile printing; also see example water-based ink 7 of Akanuma at Table 1 at para. 0110) comprising:
• a colorant including a compound (A) represented by formula (1) (see example water-based ink 7 of Akanuma at Table 1 at para. 0110; example 7 contains 40 wt% of aqueous dispersion 7; also see Akanuma at para. 0100, teaching aqueous dispersion 7 as containing C.I. Disperse Violet 28; C.I. Disperse Violet 28 corresponds to the claimed “compound (A),” as disclosed by Applicants in their specification at para. 0015);
• an anionic dispersant (also see Akanuma at para. 0100, teaching aqueous dispersion 7 as containing Joncryl 678, which is an anionic dispersant, as evidenced by Ota at para. 0157; also see Akanuma at para. 0065, teaching Joncryl 678 as functioning as a polymeric dispersant);
• water; a surfactant; and a water-soluble organic solvent, wherein the water-soluble organic solvent includes a glycerol and a glycol (see example water-based ink 7 of Akanuma at Table 1 at para. 0110; example 7 contains Surfynol 465 (surfactant), water, glycerin (a glycerol), and propylene glycol (a glycol)).
While Akanuma teaches the ink outlined above, Akanuma fails to explicitly teach, in high-performance liquid chromatography analysis or HPLC analysis of the colorant at a measurement wavelength of 500 nm, a peak area of a compound (B) represented by formula (2) to be 1.4% or less based on 100% of a total peak area of the colorant, and a peak area of a compound (C) represented by formula (3) to be 0.8% or less based on 100% of the total peak area of the colorant.
However, Koike teaches disperse dyes tend to contain impurities, such as reaction by-products or unreacted substances, which may result in sediment formation which may clog nozzles (see Koike at col. 2, lines 4-19). Koike further teaches the purity of the disperse dye to preferably be 90% or greater, and that a purity below this amount may case inferior ejection stability, nozzle clogging, a deteriorated dispersion stability, or insufficient level dyeing in the use of the ink on print dyeing (see Koike at col. 4, lines 61-68). Moreover, Koike teaches Disperse Violet 28 as a suitable disperse dye, and further teaches the purity can be measured with already known methods such as high-speed liquid chromatography (see Koike at col. 3, line 3 and line 35-41).
In general, it is well-known that coloring compound purities may be measured via peak area measurements using high performance liquid chromatography, and that purities of 95% or greater relative to the total coloring compound are desirable (see Matsumoto at para. 0016-0020 and 0089).
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 purity of the coloring compound, i.e., C.I. Disperse Violet 28, in ink example 7 of Akanuma to range from 90% or greater, e.g., 100%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent inferior ejection stability, nozzle clogging, a deteriorated dispersion stability, or insufficient level dyeing in the use of the ink on print dyeing (see Koike at col. 4, lines 61-68).
Following the above modification, the colorant of modified example 7 of Akanuma contains pure C.I. Disperse Violet 28 as the colorant in their ink. Accordingly, it necessarily follows that at a wavelength measurement of 500 nm, 100% of the peak area is from the C.I. Disperse Violet 28 (i.e., the claimed compound (A)), and 0% of the peak area is from the claimed compounds (B) and (C) in modified example 7 of Akanuma (i.e., since the colorant is pure C.I. Disperse Violet 28, the colorant contains no other materials such as the claimed compounds (B) or (C)). These values of 100% and 0% fall within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 2, see example water-based ink 7 of Akanuma at Table 1 at para. 0110; example 7 contains 15% glycerin and 5% propylene glycol, for a ratio of 15:5, or 3:1; this ratio of 3:1 falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, while modified example ink 7 of Akanuma teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Akanuma fails to explicitly teach the anionic dispersant as being a formalin condensate of sodium naphthalenesulfonate.
However, Akanuma broadly teaches their anionic dispersant may include sodium salts of formalin condensates of polymeric sulfonic acid, such as β-naphthalene sulfonic acid (see Akanuma at para. 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sodium salt of a formalin condensate of β-naphthalene sulfonic acid, alternative to the Joncryl 678, as the anionic dispersant in modified ink example 7, because Akanuma broadly teaches such an anionic dispersant as suitable for use in their ink (see Akanuma at para. 0064). The substitution of art-recognized equivalents has been shown to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akanuma in view of Koike and Matsumoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chidate (US-20210129537-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Chidate”).
Regarding claim 3, while modified example 7 of Akanuma teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified example 7 of Akanuma fails to explicitly teach the water-soluble organic solvent as further including a glycol ether, wherein a content of the glycol ether is not less than 1% by mass and not more than 3% by mass based on a total mass of the ink composition.
However, Chidate teaches an aqueous ink jet ink composition for textile printing (see Chidate at para. 0034-0035; and 0093). Chidate further teaches their ink may contain a colorant, such as a disperse dye (see Chidate at para. 0046 and 0052). Moreover, Chidate teaches the ink may contain a glycol ether as a solvent, and that by adding a glycol ether to the ink, it is possible to adjust wettability toward and/or permeation rate into recording media and thus clearly form images, patterns, and the like (see Chidate at para. 0070). Additionally, Chidate teaches the content of the glycol ether to preferably range from 0.05 to 6% by mass (see Chidate at para. 0073).
Akanuma teaches their ink may contain various glycol ethers as suitable organic solvents (see Akanuma at para. 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a glycol ether in ink example 7 of modified Akanuma in an amount ranging from 0.05 to 6% by mass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to adjust wettability toward and/or permeation rate into recording media and thus clearly form images, patterns, and the like (see Chidate at para. 0070 and 0073).
This range of 0.05 to 6% by mass overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, while modified example 7 of Akanuma teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified example 7 of Akanuma fails to explicitly teach (1) the water-soluble organic solvent as further including a glycol ether, and (2) a content of the water-soluble organic solvent to range from 15% by mass to 40% by mass based on a total mass of the ink composition.
Regarding (1), the same modification in claim 3 above is incorporated herein. Regarding (2), following the above modification, the ink of modified example 7 of Akanuma contains 15 wt% of glycerin, 5 wt% of propylene glycol, and 0.05 to 6% of a glycol ether. Thus, the total organic solvent content in modified example ink 7 of Akanuma ranges from 20.05 wt% to 26 wt% (15% glycerin + 5% propylene glycol + 0.05% glycol ether min = 20.05% total solvent content min; 15% glycerin + 5% propylene glycol + 6% glycol ether max = 26% total solvent content max). This range falls completely within the claimed range.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akanuma in view of Koike and Matsumoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iuchi et al. (US-20170137652-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Iuchi”).
Regarding claim 6, while modified example 7 of Akanuma teaches the ink according to claim 1 outlined above, modified example 7 of Akanuma fails to explicitly teach the surfactant as being a silicone surfactant.
However, Iuchi teaches an ink composition which may include a disperse dye, and which may be used for textile printing (see Iuchi at para. 0010, 0042, and 0087). Iuchi further teaches the ink may include a surfactant, such as a nonionic, a silicone, or a fluorine surfactant, and that a silicone surfactant is most preferred in consideration of economic efficiency (see Iuchi at para. 0076). Moreover, Iuchi teaches Surfynol 465 as a suitable nonionic surfactant (see Iuchi at para. 0076).
Example 7 of modified Akanuma contains Surfynol 465 as a surfactant (see example water-based ink 7 of Akanuma at Table 1 at para. 0110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Surfynol 465 surfactant in modified example 7 of Akanuma with a silicone surfactant like that taught by Iuchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so from the consideration of economic efficiency (see Iuchi at para. 0076).
Examiner’s Suggestions
In the interest of expedited prosecution, the Examiner proposes a few potential amendments to overcome the current grounds of rejection. It is noted that these amendments are suggested following a brief, cursory glance of the specification and the prior art, and there is no guarantee such amendments won’t read on the current references upon a more detailed review. Moreover, further search and consideration would be required if any such amendments are added (i.e., allowability is NOT guaranteed following the incorporation of such amendments). Lastly, Applicants may use all or none of such suggestions – they are merely intended as a helpful starting point for potential future amendments, if desired. If Applicants wish to clarify or discuss the below suggested amendments further, the Examiner invites Applicants to telephone for an interview.
Amendment Suggestion 1 (support found in Table 1 at pg. 59 of Applicant’s specification, see example Colorant A):
“…a peak area of a compound (B) represented by formula (2) below is 0.6% or more and 1.4% or less based on 100% of a total peak area of the colorant…”
Amendment Suggestion 2 (support found in Table 1 at pg. 59 of Applicant’s specification, see example Colorant B):
“…a peak area of a compound (C) represented by formula (3) below is 0.2% or more and 0.8% or less based on 100% of the total peak area of the colorant…”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hanazato et al. (WO-2022224945-A1), with reference to the included machine translation, teach a colored dispersion (see Hanazato et al. at Abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights