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 1-6 and 17-32, in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has elected to elect with traverse. Applicant argues the claims are sufficiently related that an undue search burden would not be present (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 1).
However, this is not found persuasive because establishment of a search burden is used to determine whether the Office may require restriction in national applications filed under 35 (U.S.C. 111(a). The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). See MPEP Chapter 1800, in particular MPEP § 1850, § 1875, and § 1893.03(d), for a detailed discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In other words, the requirement regarding a serious search burden does not apply to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371.
Claims 7-16 and 33-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 7-16 and 33-38 are directed to a non-elected invention. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 06/30/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality:
• In claim 19, “R2” should be amended to read “R2.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 18-22, and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koike et al. (JP-2017132915-A), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Koike”), with evidence from Nagase et al. (US-20160237292-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Nagase”) as to the rejection of claim 28 only.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 18-20, Koike teaches a nonaqueous ink composition to be ejected by an inkjet method (see Koike at pg. 3, para. 15, teaching a solvent-based ink jet ink containing a pigment and a solvent), the nonaqueous ink composition comprising:
• a colorant; and an organic solvent (see Koike at pg. 3, para. 15; and pg. 4, para. 4, teaching a solvent-based ink jet ink containing a pigment and a solvent),
• the colorant containing a white pigment (wherein the white pigment contains an inorganic oxide, regarding claim 2) (wherein the white pigment contains titanium oxide, regarding claim 3) (see Koike at pg. 4, para. 9, teaching the pigment is preferably a white pigment, such as titanium dioxide),
• the organic solvent containing the following organic solvent A: organic solvent A: at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkylamide-based solvent (a1) and a cyclic amide-based solvent (a2) (wherein the organic solvent A contains the alkylamide-based solvent (a1), regarding claim 18) (wherein alkylamide-based solvent is represented by the general formula (1), regarding claim 19) (wherein the alkylamide-based solvent includes N-N-diethylformamide, regarding claim 20) (see Koike at pg. 6, para. 4, teaching the solvent may include an amide, such as diethylformamide; diethylformamide is an alkyl amide represented by the general formula (1)).
Regarding claim 4, see Koike at pg. 5, para. 3, teaching the content of the pigment to preferably range from 10% by mass or more to 18% by mass or less, which falls completely within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed limitation is a recitation of intended use. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the limitation. See MPEP § 2111.
Regarding claims 21-22, see Koike at pg. 6, para. 3, teaching the ink may contain a pyrrolidone, such as 2-pyrrolidone; 2-pyrrolidone reads on the claimed general formula (2)
Regarding claim 24-27, see Koike at pg. 5, para. 4-7, teaching the ink may include a glycol ether, such as diethylene glycol monomethyl ether (a monoalkyl ether) or diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (a dialkyl ether).
Regarding claim 28, see Example 1 of untranslated Koike at pg. 21 and Koike at pg. 12, para. 8, teaching an example ink containing 69.5% of DEGMEE, or diethylene glycol methyl ethyl ether, and 5% of DPGmBE, or dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether; diethylene glycol methyl ethyl ether has a flash point of 64°C, as taught by Koike at pg. 12, para. 8; further, dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether has a flash point of 96°C, as evidenced by Nagase at para. 0034; accordingly, Koike reasonably suggests via their example embodiments the inclusion of two glycol ethers having different flash points in their ink.
Regarding claims 29-31, see Koike at pg. 7, para. 4-6, teaching the ink may contain a fixing resin, such as an acrylic resin, in an amount ranging from preferably 0.1 to 10% by mass.
Claims 1-4, 6, 17, 21-23, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayata et al. (EP-2484729-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Hayata”), with evidence from Tamoto (US-20120249711-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Tamoto”) as to the rejection of claim 31 only.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 21-23, Hayata teaches a nonaqueous ink composition to be ejected by an inkjet method (see Hayata at para. 0001, teaching an inkjet ink; also see Example 56 of Hayata at pg. 24-25, teaching an example nonaqueous white ink), the nonaqueous ink composition comprising:
• a colorant; and an organic solvent, the colorant containing a white pigment (wherein the white pigment contains an inorganic oxide, regarding claim 2) (wherein the white pigment contains titanium oxide, regarding claim 3) (see Example 56 of Hayata at pg. 24-25, teaching an example ink containing titanium oxide as a white pigment, and N-vinylcaprolactam as a monomer; it necessarily follows the N-vinylcaprolactam functions as an “organic solvent” in the ink, since N-vinlcaprolactam is the same compound claimed by Applicants, see claim 23; products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP § 2112.01(II)),
• the organic solvent containing the following organic solvent A: organic solvent A: at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkylamide-based solvent (a1) and a cyclic amide-based solvent (a2) (wherein the organic solvent A contains the cyclic amide-based solvent (a2), regarding claim 21) (wherein the cyclic amide-based solvent is represented by the general formula (2), regarding claim 22) (wherein the cyclic amide-based solvent includes N-vinylcaprolactam, regarding claim 23) (see Example 56 of Hayata at pg. 24-25, teaching an example ink containing N-vinylcaprolactam).
Regarding claim 4, see Example 56 of Hayata at pg. 24-25, teaching an example ink containing 15% of titanium oxide as a white pigment.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed limitation is a recitation of intended use. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the limitation. See MPEP § 2111.
Regarding claim 17, see Example 56 of Hayata at pg. 24-25, teaching an example ink containing 27.4% of N-vinylcaprolactam.
Regarding claims 29-31, see Example 56 of Hayata at pg. 24-25, teaching an example ink containing 1.5% of a resin dispersant, SOLSPERSE 41000; SOLSPERSE 41000 is a polyester resin, as evidenced by Tamoto at para. 0177.
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 5, 17, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike, with evidence from Mizutani et al. (US-20150284579-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Mizutani”) as to the rejection of claim 5 only.
Regarding claim 5, see Koike at pg. 8, para. 6, teaching the ink to contain a surfactant, such as a silicon-based surfactant; also see Koike at pg. 8, para. 7, teaching BYK-315 as a suitable silicon-based surfactant; BYK-315 is a polysiloxane surfactant, as evidenced by Mizutani at para. 0087; also see Koike at pg. 8, para. 10, teaching the content of the surfactant to range from 0.05 to 3 mass%; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, see Koike at pg. 6, para.4, teaching the content of the amide solvent to range from 0.5 to 20% by mass with respect to the total mass of the ink; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 32, see Koike at pg. 6, para. 8, teaching the ink may contain a resin dispersant; also see Koike at pg. 7, para. 3, teaching the resin dispersant may be present in a concentration of 0.03 to 5 parts by mass with respect to 1 part by mass of the pigment; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05; it is noted that for the claim 32 rejection, the “resin dispersant” of Koike corresponds to the claimed “resin” rather than the “fixing resin” of Koike.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Asai et al. (JP-2018058977-A), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Asai”).
Regarding claim 23, while Koike teaches the ink according to claim 22 outlined above, Koike fails to explicitly teach the cyclic amide-based solvent to include at least one selected from the group consisting of ε-caprolactam, N-methyl-ε-caprolactam, and N-vinylcaprolactam.
However, Asai teaches a nonaqueous inkjet ink containing an organic solvent, a pigment, and a vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer resin (see Asai at pg. 1, last paragraph). Asai further teaches the organic solvent may include a nitrogen-containing solvent, a sulfur-containing solvent, or a lactone solvent, and that when these are used, the permeability of the ink to the base material is increased, the drying property at the time of printing, abrasion resistance of printed matter, and the alcohol resistance is increased (see Asai at pg. 6, last paragraph and pg. 7, para. 1). Moreover, Asai teaches ε-caprolactam as a suitable solvent (see Asai at pg. 7, para. 1).
In this case, ε-caprolactam is a well-known solvent suitable for use in non-aqueous ink compositions (see Asai at pg. 7, para. 1). Further, Koike teaches their solvent may include amides (see Koike at pg. 5, para. 4).
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 ε-caprolactam as an amide solvent in the ink of Koike. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the permeability of the ink to the base material, the drying property at the time of printing, the abrasion resistance of printed matter, and the alcohol resistance (see Asai at pg. 6, last paragraph and pg. 7, para. 1).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 18-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. US-12473448-B2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘448), in view of Hayasaka et al. (WO-2018008639-A1), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Hayasaka”).
With respect to instant claims 1-4, claim 9 of ‘448 claims most of the instant limitations expect for the presence of a white pigment, where the white pigment is titanium oxide (regarding instant claims 2-3), wherein a content of the white pigment if 8 to 20 mass% (regarding instant claim 4).
However, titanium dioxide is ubiquitous as a white pigment in the ink art, and is known to be preferred as a white pigment from the viewpoints of coloring power, hiding power, chemical resistance, and weather resistance (see Hayasaka at pg. 10, para. 3). Further, it is known to use a pigment in a non-aqueous ink in an amount ranging from 1 to 50% by mass to ensure coloring power (see Hayasaka at pg. 10, para. 5).
Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use titanium dioxide as a colorant in the ink of ‘448 in an amount ranging from 1 to 50% by mass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so from the viewpoints of coloring power, hiding power, chemical resistance, and weather resistance (see Hayasaka at pg. 10, para. 3).
This range of 1 to 50% by mass overlaps the instant claim 4 range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to instant claim 6, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 6 is an intended use limitation; since the ink of modified ‘448 is the same as that claimed, it necessarily is considered capable of meeting the limitation. See MPEP § 2111.
With respect to instant claims 18-24, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 18 is met by claim 10 of ‘448; instant claim 19 is met by claim 9 of ‘448; instant claim 20 is met by claim 11 of ‘448; instant claim 21 is met by claim 12 of ‘448; instant claim 22 is met by claim 9 of ‘448; instant claim 23 is met by claim 13 of ‘448; and instant claim 24 is met by claim 9 of ‘448 (a lactone is a cyclic ester).
Claims 5, 25-27 and 29-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of ‘448 in view of Hayasaka, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and further in view of Koike.
With respect to instant claim 5, modified ‘448 fails to claim the surfactant limitations. However, Koike teaches a silicone (i.e., siloxane) surfactant (e.g., BYK-315) may be added to their non-aqueous ink in an amount of 0.05 to 3 mass% to lower the surface tension and improve wettability to the recording medium (see Koike at pg. 8, para. 6-7).
Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a siloxane-based surfactant (e.g., BYK-315) to the ink of modified ‘448 in an amount ranging from 0.05 to 3 mass%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to lower the surface tension and improve wettability to the recording medium (see Koike at pg. 8, para. 6-7).
This range of 0.05 to 3 mass% overlaps the instant claim 5 range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to instant claims 25-27, modified ‘448 fails to claim the presence of a glycol ether, such as a dialkyl ether or a monoalkyl ether. However, Koike teaches their solvent to preferably contain a glycol ether represented by a general formula (1), and that by including such a compound, excellence in cleanliness of the inkjet head is obtained, the ink is excellent in sedimentation stability and storage stability, and aggregation of the pigment on a recording medium is suppressed (see Koike at pg. 5, para. 5-6). Moreover, Koike teaches diethylene glycol monomethyl ether and diethylene glycol diethyl ether as suitable compounds represented by the formula (1) (see Koike at pg. 5, para. 7).
Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a glycol ether solvent, e.g., diethylene glycol diethyl ether (a dialkyl) or diethylene glycol monomethyl ether (a monoalkyl), as a solvent in the ink of modified ‘448. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do some in order to obtain excellence in cleanliness of the inkjet head, to obtain an ink excellent in sedimentation stability and storage stability, and to suppress aggregation of the pigment on a recording medium (see Koike at pg. 5, para. 5-6).
With respect to instant claims 29-32, modified ‘448 fails to claim the ink as comprising the claimed resin limitations.
However, Koike teaches their ink to include a fixing resin to fix the pigment to a recording medium, and that examples include acrylic resins (see Koike at pg. 7, para. 4-5). Koike further teaches the fixing resin to preferably range from 0.1 to 10% by mass so that excellent fixability can be obtained particularly for a low absorption recording medium (see Koike at pg. 7, para. 6). In general, fixing resins are ubiquitous in the ink art.
Therefore, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add an acrylic fixing resin to the ink of modified ‘448 in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 10% by mass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to fix the pigment to a recording medium (see Koike at pg. 7, para. 4-6).
Following the above modifications, the ink of modified ‘448 contains a white titanium dioxide pigment in an amount ranging from 1 to 50% by mass, as well as an acrylic fixing resin in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 10% by mass. Accordingly, the ratio of the resin to the pigment ranges from 0.002 to 10 (0.1/50 = 0.002; 10/1 = 10); this range overlaps the instant claim 32 range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 1-4, 6, 17-26, 29, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7-12, and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. US-12338356-B2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘356), in view of Hayasaka.
With regard to instant claims 1-4, claim 1 (and claim 20) of ‘356 claim most of the instant limitations expect for the presence of a white pigment, where the white pigment is titanium oxide (regarding instant claims 2-3), wherein a content of the white pigment is 8 to 20 mass% (regarding instant claim 4). However, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because such limitations are obvious over Hayasaka, for the same reasons as outlined previously above (see claim 1 double patenting rejection over ‘448 above).
With respect to instant claim 6, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 6 is an intended use limitation; since the ink of modified ‘864 is the same as that claimed, it necessarily is considered capable of meeting the limitation. See MPEP § 2111.
With respect to instant claims 17-26, 29, and 31, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 17 is met by claim 2 of ‘356; instant claims 18-20 are met by claims 7-9 of ‘356; instant claims 21-23 are met by claims 10-12 of ‘356; instant claims 24-26 are met by claim 1 of ‘356; and instant claims 29 and 31 are met by claims 20-21 of ‘356.
Claims 5, 27, 30, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘356 in view of Hayasaka, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and further in view of Koike.
With respect to instant claim 5, modified ‘356 fails to claim the surfactant limitations. However, such limitations are obvious over Koike, for the same reasons as previously mentioned above (see the instant claim 5 double patenting rejection over ‘448 above).
With respect to instant claim 27, ‘356 fails to claim the presence of a monoalkyl ether. However, such a limitation is obvious to include in the ink of claim 20 of ‘356, for the same reasons as previously mentioned above (see the instant claims 25-27 double patenting rejection over ‘448 above).
With respect to instant claims 30 and 32, ‘356 fails to claim the resin limitations. However, such limitations are obvious over Koike, for the same reasons as previously mentioned above (see the claims 29-32 double patenting rejections over ‘448 above).
Claims 1-4, 6, 18-20, 24, 25, 27, and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 14 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/277,864 (see claim set dated 08/18/2023) (hereinafter referred to as ‘864), in view of Hayasaka.
With regard to instant claims 1-4, claim 1 of ‘864 claims most of the instant limitations expect for the presence of a white pigment, where the white pigment is titanium oxide (regarding instant claims 2-3), wherein a content of the white pigment if 8 to 20 mass% (regarding instant claim 4). However, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because such limitations are obvious over Hayasaka, for the same reasons as outlined previously above (see claim 1 double patenting rejection over ‘448 above).
With respect to instant claim 6, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claim 6 is an intended use limitation; since the ink of modified ‘864 is the same as that claimed, it necessarily is considered capable of meeting the limitation. See MPEP § 2111.
With respect to instant claims 18-20, 24, 25, 27, and 29, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because instant claims 18-20 are met by claim 4 of ‘864; instant claims 24-25 and 27 are met by claim 1 of ‘448; and instant claim 29 is met by claim 14 of ‘448.
Claims 5 and 30-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘864 in view of Hayasaka, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and further in view of Koike.
With respect to instant claim 5, modified ‘864 fails to claim the surfactant limitations. However, such limitations are obvious over Koike, for the same reasons as previously mentioned above (see the claim 5 double patenting rejection over ‘448 above).
With respect to instant claims 30-32, ‘864 fails to claim the resin limitations. However, such limitations are obvious over Koike, for the same reasons as mentioned above (see the claims 29-32 double patenting rejections over ‘448 above).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘864 in view of Hayasaka, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and further in view of Asai.
With respect to instant claims 21-23, ‘864 claims their ink may contain an amide-based solvent (see claim 1 of ‘864). However, ‘864 fails to claim their ink as containing a cyclic amide-based solvent selected from the group consisting of ε-caprolactam, N-methyl-ε-caprolactam, and N-vinylcaprolactam. However, such a limitation is obvious over Asai, for the same reasons as previously outlined above (see the prior art claim 23 rejection over Koike in view of Asai above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hiraoka (US-20150042731-A1) teaches a non-aqueous photopolymerizable inkjet ink (see Hiraoka at Abstract).
Sao et al. (US-20130286117-A1) teach an ink set for ink jet recording (see Sao at Abstract).
Numakura et al. (US-20150247046-A1) teach a non-aqueous ink jet ink.
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