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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11, filed 03 February 2026, with respect to the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the terminal disclaimer 03 February 2026. The provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11, filed 03 February 2026, with respect to the rejections under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejections under 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03 February 2026 with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejections under Otomo et al have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are out of scope with the claimed invention. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “hampering,” as used in the independent claims, encompasses the invention of Otomo et al. The color development regulator of Otomo et al, in the absence of water, prevents contact between the electron-donating and the electron-accepting compound.
Applicant’s arguments that the claimed material does not change color due to mere humidity changes are not persuasive. This describes the intended use and function of the device. However, the claim limitations do not disclose structural details effecting this behavior.
Applicant’s arguments that Otomo et al detects humidity by loss of color are not convincing. Otomo et al specifically teaches the use of compounds that develop color, as read on the taught ([0014], “Specifically, leuco dyes are preferably used, and examples of such compounds that develop color or change color in an acidic environment include pH indicators, triarylmethane derivatives, and fluoran derivatives.”; emphasis added by examiner.).
Applicant’s arguments that Otomo does not teach that “water does not function to enable or trigger electron donation and acceptance leading to color development” (Remarks, page 16). Otomo et al expressly teaches this, as read on ([0031], “The humidity indicator of the present invention obtained as described above is capable of exhibiting a color change (including discoloration) by first absorbing moisture from the porous particles contained in the color-changing composition supported on the carrier, then deliquescing the deliquescent substance due to the moisture, dissolving the acidic compound in the moisture and fluidizing it, which then reacts with the electron-donating color-changing compound.”). Dissolving an acidic compound to fluidize it and allow a reaction with the electron-donating compound clearly reads on water enabling electron donation leading to color development.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 3 are not convincing, as they rely on the argument against Otomo et al. The combined rejection of claim 3 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4 – 6 are not convincing, as they rely on the argument against Otomo et al. The combined rejections of claims 4 – 6 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 9 are not convincing, as they rely on the argument against Otomo et al. The combined rejection of claim 3 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 21 – 23 are not convincing, as the limitations of these claims recite functional language describing the intended use or behavior of the device without disclosing any structural limitations accomplishing this behavior. As all structural limitations of the device are disclosed in Otomo et al, claims 21 – 23 are rejected in view of Otomo et al.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 15 and 16 are not convincing, as they rely on the argument against Otomo et al. The combined rejection of claims 15 and 16 are maintained. Additionally, Inoue is relied upon solely to teach that a desirable range of pore sizes is known in the prior art. Therefore, applicant’s arguments that the porous substances are not analogous is unconvincing.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 03 February 2026 have been entered. Applicant's remarks filed 03 February 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, and 19 are in status “Currently amended.” Claims 6, 7, 12, 15, 16 and 17 are in status “Original.” Claims 10, 13, and 20 are in status “Canceled.” Claims 21 – 23 are “New.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17 – 19, and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otomo et al (JP 2011185745 A).
With regards to claim 1, Otomo et al teaches;
The claimed “A composition comprising an electron-donating color-developing organic compound, an electron-accepting compound, and a color development regulator that has hydrophilicity” has been read on the taught ([0007], “…a humidity indicator paint characterized by comprising at least an electron-donating color compound, an acidic compound that is solid at room temperature, a deliquescent substance…”; The electron-donating color compound reads on an electron-donating color-developing organic compound. [0014] specifies an organic electron-donating color compounds. The acidic compound reads on an electron-accepting compound. The deliquescent substance reads on a color development regulator. [0031] teaches how the deliquescent substance hampers the development of the color by separating the acidic compound from the color-changing compound. The deliquescent material reads on the regulator being hydrophilic, as discussed in [0031].);
The claimed “a fixing material containing an oleophilic fixing agent for fixing to an object” has been read on the taught ([0028], “…a resin binder derived from an aqueous resin emulsion contained in the paint is supported on the support.”);
The claimed “wherein the color development regulator, in the absence of water, hampers the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound” and “the composition, in the absence of water, is in a state where the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound is hampered by the color development regulator” has been read on the taught ([0031] teaches how the deliquescent substance hampers the development of the color by separating the acidic compound from the color-changing compound.);
The claimed “wherein the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid” and “wherein the color development hampered composition, the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid to cause the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound, the composition, in the presence of water or a water-containing liquid, is in a color developed state by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound” has been read on the taught ([0031], “The humidity indicator of the present invention obtained as described above is capable of exhibiting a color change (including discoloration) by first absorbing moisture from the porous particles…”).
With regards to claim 2, the material of claim 1 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed device “which can develop color in the presence of water or a water-containing liquid in a state of being fixed to the object” has been read on the taught ([0031], “The humidity indicator of the present invention obtained as described above is capable of exhibiting a color change (including discoloration) by first absorbing moisture from the porous particles…”; [0014], “Specifically, leuco dyes are preferably used, and examples of such compounds that develop color or change color in an acidic environment include pH indicators, triarylmethane derivatives, and fluoran derivatives.” Emphasis added by examiner).
With regards to claim 7, the material of claim 1 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed device “in which the fixing material containing an oleophilic fixing agent is a vehicle in which the oleophilic fixing agent is dissolved or dissolved and dispersed in a volatile organic solvent” has been read on the taught ([0026], “That is, by finely dispersing or dissolving the electron-donating color-forming compound, deliquescent substance, acidic compound, and porous particles in the aqueous resin emulsion before adding the organic solvent, each component can be uniformly finely
dispersed or dissolved in the coating material.”).
With regards to claim 11, Otomo et al teaches;
The claimed “a colorant comprising a color-changeable composition comprising at least an electron-donating color-developing organic compound, an electron-accepting compound, and a color development regulator that has hydrophilicity” has been read on the taught ([0007], “…a humidity indicator paint characterized by comprising at least an electron-donating color compound, an acidic compound that is solid at room temperature, a deliquescent substance…”; The electron-donating color compound reads on an electron-donating color-developing organic compound. [0014] specifies an organic electron-donating color compounds. The acidic compound reads on an electron-accepting compound. The deliquescent substance reads on a color development regulator. [0031] teaches how the deliquescent substance hampers the development of the color by separating the acidic compound from the color-changing compound. The deliquescent material reads on the regulator being hydrophilic, as discussed in [0031].);
The claimed “in which the color-changeable composition is retained or carried by a specified microbody” has been read on the taught ([0010], “…the porous particles can be used to provide a humidity indicator that can effectively detect a desired humidity level.”; [0026] describes how the compound is dissolved in the coating material, which reads on the microbody retaining the composition.);
The claimed “in which at least a portion of the specified microbody that retains or carries the color-changeable composition exhibits basicity or neutrality” has been read on the taught ([0007], “…a humidity indicator paint characterized by comprising at least an electron-donating color compound…”; An electron-donating compound reads on a portion of the specified microbody exhibiting basicity.);
The claimed “wherein the color development regulator, in the absence of water, hampers the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound” and “the color-changeable composition, in the absence of water, is in a state where the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound is hampered by the color development regulator” has been read on the taught ([0031] teaches how the deliquescent substance hampers the development of the color by separating the acidic compound from the color-changing compound.);
The claimed “wherein the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid” and “wherein the color development hampered color-changeable composition, the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid to cause the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound, causing the specified microbody retaining or carrying the color-changeable composition to change color, the color-changeable composition, in the presence of water or a water-containing liquid, is in a color developed state by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound” has been read on the taught ([0031], “The humidity indicator of the present invention obtained as described above is capable of exhibiting a color change (including discoloration) by first absorbing moisture from the porous particles…”).
With regards to claim 12, the material of claim 11 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “in which the specified microbody is such that water or a water-containing liquid can come into contact with the retained or carried color-changeable composition” has been read on the taught ([0031], “The humidity indicator of the present invention obtained as described above is capable of exhibiting a color change (including discoloration) by first absorbing moisture from the porous particles contained in the color-changing composition supported on the carrier, then deliquescing the deliquescent substance due to the moisture, dissolving the acidic compound in the moisture and fluidizing it, which then reacts with the electron-donating color-changing compound.”).
With regards to claim 14, the material of claim 11 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “in which the specified microbody is a porous substance” has been read on the taught ([0010], “…the porous particles can be used to provide a humidity indicator that can effectively detect a desired humidity level.”).
With regards to the limitations “the composition liquefies upon heating and mixing, the porous substance which carries the composition is powdery, and the composition was in the liquefied state when carried by the porous substance,” these describe a product-by-process. According to MPEP 2113(I), “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.”
Accordingly, the limitation of “the composition liquefies upon heating and mixing” has been read on the water-soluble leuco dyes described in [0014], the water-soluble acidic compounds described in [0015], and the water-soluble deliquescent salts described in [0016], each of which could liquify upon heating and mixing within an aqueous solvent.
The limitation of “the porous substance which carries the composition is powdery” has been read on the taught ([0019], “Examples of porous particles preferably used in the present invention include fine silicon dioxide particles, magnesium aluminometasilicate, porous acrylic pigments, calcium silicate, diatomaceous earth, natural zeolite, synthetic zeolite, aluminum phosphate, and sepiolite.”; One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that fine silicon dioxide particles are powdery.”).
It is not clear what structure is implied by “the composition was in the liquefied state when carried by the porous substance.” Accordingly, this limitation does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art of Otomo et al.
With regards to claim 17, the material of claim 14 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “in which the porous substance is one kind or two or more kinds selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, silica gel, a silicon dioxide-alumina fired product, a silicon dioxide-alumina composite, a mixture of silicon dioxide and alumina, aluminum silicate, zeolite, alumina, diatomaceous earth, talc, bentonites, clays, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, acid clay, titanium oxide, and an ion exchange resin” has been read on the taught ([0019], “Examples of porous particles preferably used in the present invention include fine silicon dioxide particles, magnesium aluminometasilicate, porous acrylic pigments, calcium silicate, diatomaceous earth, natural zeolite, synthetic zeolite, aluminum phosphate, and sepiolite.”).
With regards to claim 18, Otomo et al teaches;
The claimed “a color-changeable colorant” and “wherein the color-changeable colorant comprises a color-changeable composition comprising at least an electron-donating color-developing organic compound, an electron-accepting compound, and a color development regulator that has hydrophilicity” has been read on the taught ([0007], “…a humidity indicator paint characterized by comprising at least an electron-donating color compound, an acidic compound that is solid at room temperature, a deliquescent substance…”; The electron-donating color compound reads on an electron-donating color-developing organic compound. [0014] specifies an organic electron-donating color compounds. The acidic compound reads on an electron-accepting compound. The deliquescent substance reads on a color development regulator. [0031] teaches how the deliquescent substance hampers the development of the color by separating the acidic compound from the color-changing compound. The deliquescent material reads on the regulator being hydrophilic, as discussed in [0031].);
The claimed “a fixing material containing an oleophilic fixing agent for fixing to an object” has been read on the taught ([0028], “…a resin binder derived from an aqueous resin emulsion contained in the paint is supported on the support.”);
The claimed “in which the color-changeable composition is retained or carried by a specified microbody” has been read on the taught ([0010], “…the porous particles can be used to provide a humidity indicator that can effectively detect a desired humidity level.”; [0026] describes how the compound is dissolved in the coating material, which reads on the microbody retaining the composition.);
The claimed “in which at least a portion of the specified microbody that retains or carries the color-changeable composition exhibits basicity or neutrality” has been read on the taught ([0007], “…a humidity indicator paint characterized by comprising at least an electron-donating color compound…”; An electron-donating compound reads on a portion of the specified microbody exhibiting basicity.);
The claimed “in which the color-changing material can change its color in the presence of water or a water-containing liquid,” “wherein the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid” and “wherein the color development hampered color-changeable composition, the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid to cause the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound, causing the specified microbody retaining or carrying the color-changeable composition to change color, the color-changeable composition, in the presence of water or a water-containing liquid, is in a color developed state by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound” has been read on the taught ([0031], “The humidity indicator of the present invention obtained as described above is capable of exhibiting a color change (including discoloration) by first absorbing moisture from the porous particles…”);
The claimed “wherein the color development regulator, in the absence of water, hampers the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound” and “the color-changeable composition, in the absence of water, is in a state where the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound is hampered by the color development regulator” has been read on the taught ([0031] teaches how the deliquescent substance hampers the development of the color by separating the acidic compound from the color-changing compound.).
With regard to claim 19, the material of claim 18 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed material “which can change its color in the presence of water or a water-containing liquid in a state of being fixed to the object” has been read on the taught ([0030], “The humidity indicator of the present invention is obtained by adhering an aqueous paint to a carrier such as paper or film…”; [0031], “The humidity indicator of the present invention obtained as described above is capable of exhibiting a color change (including discoloration) by first absorbing moisture from the porous particles contained in the color-changing composition supported on the carrier…”; [0014], “Specifically, leuco dyes are preferably used, and examples of such compounds that develop color or change color in an acidic environment include pH indicators, triarylmethane derivatives, and fluoran derivatives.” Emphasis added by examiner).
With regards to claim 21, the material of claim 1 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
With regards to the limitation, “wherein the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid to cause the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound, however, the color development of the composition does not occur merely by humidity changes”, this is functional language and has been given
the appropriate patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114(II), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch &
Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As Otomo et al teaches all of
the structural limitations of the apparatus as defined in claim 21, this additional limitation does not
define the instant application over the prior art.
With regards to claim 22, the material of claim 1 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
With regards to the limitation “wherein the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be instantaneously suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid to cause the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound,” this is functional language and has been given the appropriate patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114(II), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As Otomo et al teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus as defined in claim 22, this additional limitation does not define the instant application over the prior art.
With regards to claim 23, the material of claim 11 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
With regards to the limitation “wherein the color development hampering of the color development regulator will be instantaneously suppressed by water or a water-containing liquid to cause the color development by electron donation and acceptance between the electron-donating color-developing organic compound and the electron-accepting compound, causing the specified microbody retaining or carrying the color-changeable composition to change color”, this is functional language and has been given the appropriate patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114(II), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As Otomo et al teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus as defined in claim 23, this additional limitation does not define the instant application over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al (JP 2011185745 A) in view of Miyazaki et al (JP 2006152056 A) as evidenced by Zeng et al (Zeng W., Du Y., Xue Y., Frisch H.L. “Solubility Parameters” 2007. In: Mark, J.E. (eds) Physical Properties of Polymers Handbook. Springer, New York, NY).
With regards to claim 3, the device of claim 1 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches wherein the color development regulator is a silica gel.
However, Otomo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the color development regulator has a solubility parameter (δ) of 10 or more, and a difference in solubility parameter (δ) between the electron-accepting compound and the color development regulator is between plus and minus 3.
In the analogous art of color compositions, Miyazaki et al teaches;
“Wherein the difference in a solubility parameter between two compounds is between plus and minus 3” has been read on the taught ([0021], “Water-based paint (II) is a water-based paint containing 0.01 to 10 parts by weight of organic acid catalyst (C) per 100 parts by weight of the solids of resin component (B1) and resin component (B2), […] in which the difference in solubility parameter (Note 2) between resin component (B1) and resin component (B2) is in the range of 0.5 to 2.0…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition as taught by Otomo et al with the solubility parameter control as taught by Miyazaki et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Otomo et al contains a “base” composition including an electron-accepting compound which interacts with the color development regulator (see [0031]), upon which the stated solubility parameters can be seen as an “improvement.” The prior art of Miyazaki contains a comparable paint composition which has been improved with the same solubility parameters as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a solubility parameter between plus and minus 3 to the composition taught by Otomo et al, for the predictable result of allowing the electron-accepting compound to dissolve in the color development regulator.
However, Otomo et al in view of Miyazaki et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the color development regulator has a solubility parameter (δ) of 10 or more.
In the analogous art of calculating solubility parameters, Zeng et al teaches;
Zeng et al teaches that solubility parameters for non-volatile substances must be estimated, as read on the taught (16.3.2 Polymers, Measurements, paragraph 1, “For polymers, solubility parameters cannot be calculated from heat of vaporization data because of their nonvolatility. Other methods of estimation must be used.”).
Zeng et al additionally teaches that traditional calculations of the solubility parameter cannot be uniformly applied to polar systems (as would be expected for a system designed to test for water), as read on the taught (16.2 Expanded Solubility Parameters, paragraph 1, “The solubility parameter describes the enthalpy change on mixing of nonpolar solvents well but does not give uniform results when extended to polar systems.”).
Given the teachings of Zeng et al regarding the calculation of the solubility parameter and the means of choosing a polymer and solvent, as well as Miyazaki’s application of solubility parameters to features of a coating composition (see Miyazaki et al [0030], which teaches that solubility parameters may affect the gloss of a composition, or [0024], which teaches that the solubility parameter relates to the interaction between the liquid molecules of a composition), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a given value for a solubility parameter is a results-effective variable. The limitation of “a solubility parameter (δ) of 10 or more” is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would select based on desired optical properties, miscibility, desired supports, solvent selection, or other routine optimizations. Accordingly, the material of claim 3 is obvious over the teachings of Otomo et al in view of Miyazaki et al as evidenced by Zeng et al.
Claims 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al (JP 2006152056 A) as evidenced by Zeng et al (Zeng W., Du Y., Xue Y., Frisch H.L. “Solubility Parameters” 2007. In: Mark, J.E. (eds) Physical Properties of Polymers Handbook. Springer, New York, NY).
With regards to claim 4, the device of claim 1 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
However, Otomo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the oleophilic fixing agent has a solubility parameter (δ) of 12 or less.
In the analogous art of calculating solubility parameters, Zeng et al teaches;
Zeng et al teaches that solubility parameters for non-volatile substances must be estimated, as read on the taught (16.3.2 Polymers, Measurements, paragraph 1, “For polymers, solubility parameters cannot be calculated from heat of vaporization data because of their nonvolatility. Other methods of estimation must be used.”).
Zeng et al additionally teaches that traditional calculations of the solubility parameter cannot be uniformly applied to polar systems (as would be expected for a system designed to test for water), as read on the taught (16.2 Expanded Solubility Parameters, paragraph 1, “The solubility parameter describes the enthalpy change on mixing of nonpolar solvents well but does not give uniform results when extended to polar systems.”).
Given the teachings of Zeng et al regarding the calculation of the solubility parameter and the means of choosing a polymer and solvent, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a given value for a solubility parameter is a results-effective variable. The limitation of “a solubility parameter (δ) of 12 or less” is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would select based on desired optical properties, miscibility, desired supports, solvent selection, or other routine optimizations. Accordingly, the material of claim 4 is obvious over the teachings of Otomo et al as evidenced by Zeng et al.
With regards to claim 5, the device of claim 1 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
With regards to the limitation “in which 80% by weight or more of an oleophilic fixing agent […] is contained in all fixing agents contained in the fixing material,” Otomo et al teaches the use of a single fixing agent. Therefore, 100% by weight of the oleophilic fixing agent is contained in the fixing material.
However, Otomo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the oleophilic fixing agent has a solubility parameter (δ) of 12 or less.
In the analogous art of calculating solubility parameters, Zeng et al teaches;
Zeng et al teaches that solubility parameters for non-volatile substances must be estimated, as read on the taught (16.3.2 Polymers, Measurements, paragraph 1, “For polymers, solubility parameters cannot be calculated from heat of vaporization data because of their nonvolatility. Other methods of estimation must be used.”)
Zeng et al additionally teaches that traditional calculations of the solubility parameter cannot be uniformly applied to polar systems (as would be expected for a system designed to test for water), as read on the taught (16.2 Expanded Solubility Parameters, paragraph 1, “The solubility parameter describes the enthalpy change on mixing of nonpolar solvents well but does not give uniform results when extended to polar systems.”).
Given the teachings of Zeng et al regarding the calculation of the solubility parameter and the means of choosing a polymer and solvent, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a given value for a solubility parameter is a results-effective variable. The limitation of “a solubility parameter (δ) of 12 or less” is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would select based on desired optical properties, miscibility, desired supports, solvent selection, or other routine optimizations. Accordingly, the material of claim 5 is obvious over the teachings of Otomo et al as evidenced by Zeng et al.
With regards to claim 6, the device of claim 5 is obvious over Otomo et al as evidenced by Zeng et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “in which the oleophilic fixing agent […] is one kind or two or more kinds selected from the group consisting of an acrylic resin, a methacrylic resin, a urethane resin, a styrene-butadiene copolymer resin, an ethylene-vinyl acetate resin, a polyethylene resin, a styrene resin, a polyester resin, a petroleum resin, a rosin acid ester, a microstalline WAX, a paraffin WAX, and a polyethylene WAX” has been read on the taught ([0024], “The aqueous resin emulsion is not particularly limited… Specifically, an acrylic emulsion, an aqueous polyurethane, or an aqueous polyester is preferably used.”; An aqueous polyester reads on a polyester resin.).
With regards to claim 8, the device of claim 7 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
However, Otomo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein both the oleophilic fixing agent and the volatile organic solvent have a solubility parameter (δ) of 12 or less.
In the analogous art of calculating solubility parameters, Zeng et al teaches;
Zeng et al teaches that solubility parameters for non-volatile substances must be estimated, as read on the taught (16.3.2 Polymers, Measurements, paragraph 1, “For polymers, solubility parameters cannot be calculated from heat of vaporization data because of their nonvolatility. Other methods of estimation must be used.”).
Zeng et al additionally teaches that traditional calculations of the solubility parameter cannot be uniformly applied to polar systems (as would be expected for a system designed to test for water), as read on the taught (16.2 Expanded Solubility Parameters, paragraph 1, “The solubility parameter describes the enthalpy change on mixing of nonpolar solvents well but does not give uniform results when extended to polar systems.”).
Given the teachings of Zeng et al regarding the calculation of the solubility parameter and the means of choosing a polymer and solvent, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a given value for a solubility parameter is a results-effective variable. The limitation of “a solubility parameter (δ) of 12 or less” is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would select based on desired optical properties, miscibility, desired supports, solvent selection, or other routine optimizations. Accordingly, the material of claim 8 is obvious over the teachings of Otomo et al as evidenced by Zeng et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al () as evidenced by Zeng et al (Zeng W., Du Y., Xue Y., Frisch H.L. “Solubility Parameters” 2007. In: Mark, J.E. (eds) Physical Properties of Polymers Handbook. Springer, New York, NY) and as further evidenced by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (National Center for Biotechnology Information. "PubChem Compound Summary for CID 887, Methanol" PubChem, 2025)
With regards to claim 9, the device of claim 7 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
With regards to the limitation “in which 80% by weight or more of the volatile organic solvent […] is contained in all volatile organic solvents contained in the fixing material,” Otomo et al teaches the use of a single solvent. Therefore, 100% by weight of the volatile organic solvent is contained in the fixing material.
Otomo et al additionally teaches the use of methanol as a volatile organic solvent (see [0025]). It is known in the art that methanol has a boiling point of 64.7 degrees C, which reads on the volatile organic solvent having a boiling point of 200 degrees C or less. The boiling point of methanol is taught in evidentiary reference “PubChem Compound Summary for CID 887, Methanol”, attached to this office action.
However, Otomo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the volatile organic solvent has a solubility parameter (δ) of 12 or less.
In the analogous art of calculating solubility parameters, Zeng et al teaches;
Zeng et al teaches that solubility parameters for non-volatile substances must be estimated, as read on the taught (16.3.2 Polymers, Measurements, paragraph 1, “For polymers, solubility parameters cannot be calculated from heat of vaporization data because of their nonvolatility. Other methods of estimation must be used.”).
Zeng et al additionally teaches that traditional calculations of the solubility parameter cannot be uniformly applied to polar systems (as would be expected for a system designed to test for water), as read on the taught (16.2 Expanded Solubility Parameters, paragraph 1, “The solubility parameter describes the enthalpy change on mixing of nonpolar solvents well but does not give uniform results when extended to polar systems.”).
Given the teachings of Zeng et al regarding the calculation of the solubility parameter and the means of choosing a polymer and solvent, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a given value for a solubility parameter is a results-effective variable. The limitation of “a solubility parameter (δ) of 12 or less” is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would select based on desired optical properties, miscibility, desired supports, solvent selection, or other routine optimizations. Accordingly, the material of claim 9 is obvious over the teachings of Otomo et al as evidenced by Zeng et al and as further evidenced by National Center for Biotechnology Information (National Center for Biotechnology Information. "PubChem Compound Summary for CID 887, Methanol" PubChem, 2025).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al (JP 2006152056 A) in view of Inoue (JP 2002200423 A).
With regards to claim 15, the colorant of claim 14 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
Wherein the porous substance is silica, as read on the taught ([0019], “Examples of porous particles preferably used in the present invention include fine silicon dioxide particles…”).
However, Otomo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the pore volume of the porous substance is not less than 0.3 cm3/g.
In the analogous art of color-changing humidity indicators, Inoue et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the pore volume of the porous substance is not less than 0.3 cm3/g” has been read on the taught ([0009], “However, typically, silica gel having […] an average pore volume of about 0.3 to 1.3 cm/g is preferably used.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coloring agent including silica particles as taught by Otomo et al with the specified silica pore volume as taught by Inoue. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Otomo et al contains a “base” composition including silica particles upon which the stated pore volume parameters can be seen as an “improvement.” The prior art of Inoue et al contains a comparable color-changing compound that has been improved with the specified silica particle pore volume. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of the specified pore volume to the composition taught by Otomo et al, for the predictable result of allowing the porous particle to interact with molecules of a given size.
With regards to claim 16, the coloring agent according to claim 14 is anticipated by Otomo et al.
Otomo et al additionally teaches;
Wherein the porous substance is silica, as read on the taught ([0019], “Examples of porous particles preferably used in the present invention include fine silicon dioxide particles…”).
However, Otomo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the average pore diameter of the porous substance is not less than 20 angstroms.
In the analogous art of color-changing humidity indicators, Inoue et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the average pore diameter of the porous substance is not less than 20 angstroms” has been read on the taught ([0009], “However, typically, silica gel having […] an average pore diameter of 2 to 15 nm […] is preferably used.”; One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that 2nm is 20 angstroms.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coloring agent including silica particles as taught by Otomo et al with the specified silica pore diameter as taught by Inoue. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Otomo et al contains a “base” composition including silica particles upon which the stated pore diameters can be seen as an “improvement.” The prior art of Inoue et al contains a comparable color-changing compound that has been improved with the specified silica particle pore diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of the specified pore volume to the composition taught by Otomo et al, for the predictable result of allowing the porous particle to interact with molecules of a given size.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights