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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 6 is 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. In claim 6 it is unclear how one would determine whether the composition was “intended for inkjet printing”, noting that the claim does not recite any compositional limitations beyond those of claim 1. The examiner recommends that the claim be amended to further compositionally distinguish the composition over that of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 , 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (JP 2019-035057 A) . An English-language equivalent of Sato, U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0047531, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the English-language reference. In paragraph 6 Sato discloses a white inkjet ink composition comprising a white pigment, a water-dispersible resin, and water, all as recited in claim 1. It is noted that the “comprising” language of claim 1 allows for the claimed composition to comprise additional unrecited components. In paragraph 43 Sato discloses that the pigment can be a titanium oxide whose surface has been treated with alumina, silica, or other materials. In paragraph 81 Sato disclosers that the titanium oxide pigment can be CR-90, which meets the limitations of the claimed titanium oxide pigment of claim 1, as acknowledged in paragraph 10 of the current specification. In paragraph 44 Sato discloses that the white pigment is present in an amount of 1.0 to 20.0% by weight of the composition, within the range recited in claim 1. In paragraphs 54-58 Sato discloses that the composition can further comprise a pigment dispersant, where the pigment dispersant can be an acrylic acid/lauryl acrylate/styrene copolymer, meeting the limitations of the alkali-soluble resin of claim 1, and that the pigment dispersant is preferably present in an amount of 5 to 60 parts by weight of 100 parts by weight of the pigment , within the range recited in claim 1 . In paragraph 79 Sato discloses that the acrylic acid/lauryl acrylate/styrene copolymer can have a weight-average molecular weight of 30,000 and an acid value of 185 mg KOH/g, within the ranges recited in claim 3. In paragraph 6 Sato discloses that the ink is an inkjet ink, and is therefore capable of performing the intended use of claim 6 as an ink for inkjet printing. In light of the above, claims 1, 3, and 6 are anticipated by Sato. 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato . The discussion of Sato in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. Sato discloses a white ink composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, including a water-dispersible resin. Sato does not specifically disclose a water-dispersible resin content within the range recited in claim 4. In paragraph 19 Sato discloses that the water-dispersible resin is present in 1.0 to 3.0 parts by mass relative to 1 part by mass of the pigment. As discussed in paragraph 6 above, Sato discloses that the pigment is present in an amount of 1.0 to 20.0% by weight of the composition, leading to a water-dispersible resin content of 1.0 to 60.0% by weight, overlapping the range recited in claim 4. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious by Sato. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Moriyasu (WO 2018/123739 A1) . The discussions of Sato in paragraphs 6 and 9 above are incorporated here by reference. Sato discloses a white ink composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, and comprising a styrene/lauryl acrylate/acrylic acid copolymer having a molecular weight within the range recited in claim 2. Lauryl acrylate is an alkyl ester of a radical polymerizable unsaturated carboxylic acid with 8 or more carbon atoms, meeting the limitations of the middle monomer of claim 2. Sato does not specifically disclose the weight ratio of the monomers in the copolymer. An English-language machine translation of Moriyasu , which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the translation. In paragraph 7 Moriyasu discloses an aqueous inkjet composition comprising a pigment, and in paragraph 18 discloses that the pigment can be titanium oxide. In paragraphs 19 and 29-32 Moriyasu discloses that the composition can further comprise an alkali-soluble resin, which can be a styrene/lauryl acrylate/acrylic acid copolymer having the same weight-average molecular weight and acid value as that disclosed by Sato. Moriyasu discloses that the styrene is present in 45% by weight, the lauryl acrylate in 30% by weight, and acrylic acid in an amount of 25% by weight, all within the ranges recited in claim 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the styrene/lauryl acrylate/acrylic acid copolymer of Sato with monomers in the proportions taught by Moriyasu , since Moriyasu teaches that they are suitable proportions for preparing styrene/lauryl acrylate/acrylic acid copolymers useful in inkjet inks and having properties matching those of Sato. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1- 3 and 5- 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,480,016 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each othe r . Claim 1 of the ‘016 patent recites an ink kit comprising an ink composition comprising a pigment, an alkali-soluble resin, a water-dispersible resin, and wate r, all as recited in claim 1 of the current application. Claim 2 of the ‘016 patent recites that the water-dispersible resin can be an acrylic-based resin or styrene acrylic-based resin, as recited in claim 5 of the current application, and claims 1-2 of the ‘016 patent recite water-dispersible resins having acid values within the range recited in claim 5 of the current application. Claim 4 of the ‘016 patent recites that the alkali-soluble resin can be prepared from the monomers recited in claim 2 of the current application and have an acid value within the range recited in claim 3 of the current application. The ink kit and composition is used for inkjet printing, as recited in claim 6 of the current application. The differences between the claims of the ‘016 patent and the currently presented claims are that the claims of the ‘016 patent do not recite the specific titanium oxide pigment of the claims, do not recite the weight-average molecular weight of the alkali-soluble resin, and do not recite the concentrations of the pigment and alkali-soluble resin. Applicant is reminded that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel , 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). Column 14 lines 15-18 and Tables 1-2 of the ‘016 patent disclose that the pigment can be a titanium oxide pigment (PF-690) treated with silica, alumina, and organic matter, as recited in claim 1 of the current application, and that the pigment is present in amounts within the range recited in claim 1 of the current application. Column 14 lines 39-59 and Tables 1-2 of the ‘016 patent disclose that the alkali-soluble resin (Alkali-soluble resins and varnishes 4 and 5) can have a weight-average molecular weight within the range recited in claims 1-3 of the current application. Column 7 lines 52-60 of the ‘016 patent disclose that the alkali-soluble resin is present in amounts relative to the pigment within or overlapping the range recited in claim 1 of the current application. In light of the above, claims 1-3 and 5-6 of the current application define obvious variants of the invention claimed in the ‘016 patent. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome and the claim were rewritten in independent form. The prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed above, do not disclose the inclusion of the specific water-dispersible resins of claim 5. Nakashima (WO 2020/121628 A1) , an English-language equivalent of which is U.S. PG Pub. No. 2022/0025198, discloses an electron beam curable water-based inkjet ink composition comprising a colorant, a resin emulsion, and water , where the resin emulsion can be a polyurethane-based resin emulsion, as disclosed by Sato, an acrylic-based resin, as recited in claim 5, or a styrene-acrylic-based resin emulsion, which meets the limitations of both the acrylic-based and styrene-based resin emulsion of claim 5. In paragraph 68 of the English-language equivalent Nakashima discloses that A-1125, which is an anionic acrylic emulsion, is a suitable acrylic-based resin emulsion, meeting the desire of Sato (paragraph 11 of Sato) that the water-dispersible have anionic groups and be reactive with cationic compounds. However, A-1125 has an acid value of 157 mgKOH /g, far outside the range recited in claim 5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to include an acrylic-based or styrene acrylic-based resin having the claimed acid value in the composition of Sato. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imanishi (JP 2021-55093 A), an English-language translation of which is attached, discloses a water-based inkjet set. In paragraph 94 of the translation Imanishi discloses that the water-dispersible resin is preferably anionic, and in paragraph 133 of the translation discloses a composition comprising an anionic acrylic resin emulsion. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2476 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT PREM SINGH can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6381 . 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. /JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771