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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 1, applicant argues how Hiroyuki and Kaname are technologically different ink compositions where no person of ordinary skill in the art would combine as Kaname does not disclose a crosslinking agent. The applicant’s argument has been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Kaname does not teach a crosslinking agent, the examiner does not rely on Kaname to teach the crosslinking agent of the given invention. The examiner, instead, relies on the reference Hiroyuki for the crosslinking agent limitation. The examiner relies on Kaname solely for the hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) of the surfactant limitation. The combination of the references does not require the incorporation of all features of Kaname into Hiroyuki.
Furthermore, regarding applicant’s second argument for claim 1, applicant argues that the surfactant as taught by reference Kaname is not used as a pigment dispersant and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the ink of Hiroyuki by using nonionic surfactant (A) in Kaname as the pigment dispersant in Hiroyuki. The applicant’s argument has been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kaname discloses a nonionic surfactant (A) used in a water-based ink composition. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the surfactant is multifunctional and is inherently known for improving the wetting characteristics and dispersion stability of the ink composition.
Additionally, regarding applicant’s third argument for claim 1, applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the ink of Hiroyuki by using a nonionic surfactant in the claimed range of 0.1 to 2.0 % by mass since Hiroyuki only gives examples with the surfactant at 3.0% by mass. The applicant’s argument has been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Hiroyuki does not give an example of a surfactant at a different percentage by mass, Hiroyuki specifically discloses that the range of the surfactant by mass is ranged at 0.005 to 0.5 with respect to the pigment 1 by weight ratio of the active ingredient which still overlaps the given range. Therefore, the reference Hiroyuki still teaches the given range of the mass percentage of the surfactant.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki et al. (JP 2009215506 A) in view of Kaname et al. (JP 2016125057 A) and Kenichi et al. (JP 2001055530 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyuki teaches an aqueous inkjet textile printing (Section [0009], "printing inkjet" capable of using the liquid ink composition. Paragraph [0001] further clarifies how the invention relates to textiles.) ink composition (Section [0012], describes the com position of the ink for the invention.), containing
a pigment (Section [0012], the ink including a "pigment". Sections [0021]-[0024], further describes the "pigment" and offers examples of possible types.),
a water-dispersible resin (Section [0012] describes the ink includes a "water-dispersible resin (resin emulsion)" to serve as a binder, and is further described in sections [0015], [0020], [0028]-[0029].),
a surfactant (Section [0025] describes a "surfactant" as the preferred pigment dispersing agent, and is further described in sections [0026] and [0032]-[0035].),
a crosslinking agent (Section [0012] describes a "crosslinking agent" being a component in the composition of the ink. Sections [0013], [0019], and [0020] further describe the "crosslinking agent".), and
water (Section [0012] describes ''water" being a component in the composition of the ink and section [0029] further describes the "water" component.),
wherein as the surfactant is contained by 0.1 to 2.0% by mass relative to a total amount of the ink composition (Section [0026] has dispersant range of 0.005 to 0.5 with respect to the pigment 1 by weight ratio of the active ingredient which overlaps the given range.),
as the crosslinking agent, a blocked isocyanate is contained by 0.1 to 5.0% by mass relative to the total amount of the ink composition (Section [0010] mentions the weight of a blocked isocyanate-based compound is 0.15 to 2.5 parts of the 1 weight of the water dispersible resin. Therefore, the range of the blocked isocyanate-based compound compared to the ink composition would be smaller and would overlap the given range limitation).
Hiroyuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the nonionic surfactant has a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) of 1.0 to 5.0.
However, Kaname teaches a nonionic surfactant having a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) of 1.0 to 3.5 (Section [0009] paragraph 1, describes a water-based ink invention that includes two nonionic surfactants where one is labeled as an "acetylene glycol-based nonionic surfactant (nonionic surfactant)(A)" that has an HLB of 0 or more and 5 or less).
Hiroyuki and Kaname are considered to be analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink composition for aqueous inkjet printing. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ink composition for aqueous inkjet textile printing as taught be H iroyuki to also apply the nonionic surfactant within the composition to have a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) around 1.0 to 5.0 as taught be Kaname. This would have been done to suppress the water-based ink from drying allowing excellent discharge, as taught by Kaname at para. [0010].
Hiroyuki also fails to teach wherein the nonionic surfactant includes a polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene block polymer.
However, Kenichi teaches a nonionic surfactant including a polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene block polymer (Paragraph [0015] describes examples of the surfactant included in the "water-based ink" including a "polyoxyethylene polyoxypropyelene block polymer''.)
Hiroyuki and Kenichi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an aqueous, water-based, ink jet recording ink composition. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonionic surfactant taught by Hiroyuki to include a polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene block polymer as taught by Kenichi. This would have been done for the purpose of using a surfactant that is conventionally used in water-based ink jet recording inks, as taught by Kenichi at paragraph [0015].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hiroyuki, Kaname, and Kenichi teaches the aqueous inkjet textile printing ink composition according to claim 1.
Hiroyuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the surfactant contains a nonionic surfactant having an HLB of 1.0 to 3.0.
However, Kaname teaches a nonionic surfactant having a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) of 1.0 to 3.0 (Section [0009] paragraph 1, describes the water-based ink invention that includes two nonionic surfactants where one is labeled as an "acetylene glycol-based nonionic surfactant (nonionic surfactant)(A)" that has an HLB of 0 or more and 5 or less which encompasses the range given.).
Hiroyuki and Kaname are considered to be analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink composition for aqueous inkjet textile printing. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ink composition for aqueous inkjet textile printing as taught be H iroyuki to also apply the nonionic surfactant within the composition to have a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) around 1.0 to 3.0 as taught be Tetsuya. This would have been done for the purpose of suppressing the water-based ink from drying allowing excellent discharge property, as taught by Kaname, at paragraph [0010].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hiroyuki, Kaname, and Kenichi teaches the aqueous inkjet textile printing ink composition according to claim 1, Hiroyuki further discloses wherein the water-dispersible resin contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a urethane-based resin and a styrene acrylic-based resin (Section [0015], paragraph 2, states that the types of water-dispersible resin were not limited and that the preferred type is a urethane resin. Section [0016], paragraph 2 further discloses that other examples of the water-dispersible resin is an "acrylic-styrene resin").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hiroyuki, Kaname, and Kenichi teaches the aqueous inkjet textile printing ink composition according to claim 2, Hiroyuki further discloses wherein the water-dispersible resin contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a urethane-based resin and a styrene acrylic-based resin (Section [0015], paragraph 2, states that the types of water-dispersible resin were not limited and that the preferred type is a urethane resin. Section [0016], paragraph 2 further discloses that other examples of the water-dispersible resin is an "acrylic-styrene resin").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853