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 with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues how the amendments should place claim 1 in condition for allowance. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the arguments would be rendered moot due to the amended limitation of the pigment including vegetable oil charcoal is rejected using the reference Jou et al. (US 20070003348 A1). The specification of the application states that the “carbon black (vegetable oil charcoal) is carbon black derived from vegetable oil obtained by using, as a raw material, castor oil, rosin oil, or the like” (paragraph [0019]). Therefore, the application equates vegetable oil charcoal as a carbon black derived from vegetable oil. Jou discloses an oil-based ink including a liquid form carbon black where the oil may be vegetable oil and; therefore, teaches the limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant has amended the claim to acknowledge the limitation of a dispersant that includes a lignin compound with a mass amount range between 3% - 10%. The applicant argues that despite the reference Suga teaching an amount of dispersant within the ink composition, the range is less than 2%, and that claim 2 is in condition for an allowance. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the arguments would be rendered moot due to the amended limitation of claim 2 being rejected using the reference Ikeda (EP 2998373 B1)
Regarding claims 3-10, the applicant argues that the dependent claims 3-10 are in condition for allowance due to the arguments made for claim 1. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the arguments would be rendered moot due to the rejections made above.
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, 3-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga et al. (US 5160370 A) in view of Harada et al. (US 20200062976 A1) and Jou et al. (US 20070003348 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Suga teaches an ink jet ink composition (Column 2, lines 13-26 describes Suga teaching a "recording liquid" for an ink-jet recording method) comprising:
a pigment (Column 2, lines 13-14 describes the "recording liquid" taught by Suga to include a pigment.)
a dispersant (Column 3, lines 65-66 describes the "water-soluble resins" included in the "recording liquid" that are used to disperse the pigments and can be used as dispersants.)
the dispersant includes a lignin compound (Column 4, lines 13-16 describes how "lignin sultanate" is an example natural polymer that can be used for the "water soluble resin".)
the ink jet ink composition being an aqueous ink (Column 2, lines 13-15 describes the "recording liquid" to include water and is therefore aqueous), wherein the pigment is dispersed by the dispersant in water (Column 3, lines 65-66 describes the "water-soluble resins" can be used as dispersants and used in dispersion of pigments. Suga further discloses the "water-soluble resin" and pigment dispersed in water by describing, in column 3, lines 58-59, the examples of pigments that can be used within the "recording liquid" are not limited "so long as they are dispersible in aqueous mediums".)
Suga fails to teach the ink jet ink composition comprising a biomass resin.
However, Harada teaches a biomass resin, (Paragraph [0008] describes the ink composition taught by Harada to include a "biomass polyurethane resin".)
Suga and Harada are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving the composition of inkjet inks. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inkjet ink taught by Suga to also apply a biomass resin to the inkjet ink taught by Harada for the purpose improving the ink composition to reduce global warming and environmental load as it is not an industrial resource which is not an exhaustible resource (Harada, Paragraph [0002]).
Suga fails to teach the pigment including vegetable oil charcoal.
However, Jou discloses a pigment including vegetable oil charcoal (Paragraph [0027] describes how “oil-based inks serve several functional purposes” as the oil helps with the pigment dispersion. The paragraph further discloses a “carbon black” pigment, which is known to be a carbonaceous pigment, that has been “pre-mixed in an oil suspension”. Paragraph [0031] further explains that examples of these oils would be “vegetable oils” such as castor oil and soybean oil.).
Suga and Jou are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving the composition of inkjet inks. The claimed language recites a “pigment including a vegetable oil charcoal” but does not further disclose or define the charcoal. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inkjet ink taught by Suga to also apply a pigment including a carbonaceous pigment with vegetable oil taught by Jou. This would have been for the purpose achieving good printing results without applying high shear energy during the ink-making process (Jou, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, Suga further discloses wherein the lignin compound includes a lignin sultanate (Column 4, lines 13-16 describes how "lignin sultanate" is an example natural polymer that can be used for the "water-soluble resin".).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1 .
Modified Suga fails to teach the biomass resin has any one or more kinds of an alicyclic structure and an aromatic ring structure.
However, Harada teaches the biomass resin has any one or more kinds of an alicyclic structure and an aromatic ring structure (Paragraph [0017] describes the ink including a biomass polyurethane resin that will act as the binder resin, where polyurethanes are well known to include both alicyclic and aromatic compounds. Paragraphs [0021 ]-[0025] describes four different methods to obtain a polyurethane resin that all include the use of a polyisocyanate. Paragraph [0026] further discloses how the polyisocyanate used in the four methods are not limited and then gives an example of obtaining the polyisocyanate by mixing an aromatic diisocyanate compound, an alicyclic diisocyanate compound, an aliphatic diisocyanate compound, and an aliphatic-aromatic diisocyanate compound.).
Modified Suga and Harada are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving print 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 modify the ink taught by modified Suga to also apply the biomass resin to have any one or more kinds of an alicyclic structure and an aromatic ring structure taught by Harada for the purpose of improving the ink composition to reduce global warming and environmental load while also improving the ink's blocking characteristic and lamination ability (Harada, Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1.
Suga fails to teach wherein a mass ratio (B/A) of a content B of the biomass resin to a content A of the pigment is 0.5 to 6.0.
However, Harada teaches wherein a mass ratio (B/A) of a content B of the biomass resin to a content A of the pigment is 0.5 to 6.0. (Paragraph [0015] describes the percentage of the pigment within the ink composition to be from 0.5-50%. While paragraphs [0037] and [0047] disclose the polyurethane resin within the ink composition to be from 5-20% and the biomass polyurethan resin contained within the polyurethane resin to be preferably 40-100%. This would calculate the biomass polyurethane resin within the ink composition to be from 2-20%. Someone of ordinary skill would then be able to calculate the minimum ratio between the biomass resin and the pigment by comparing the smallest percentage of the biomass resin to the largest percentage of pigment to receive the ratio of 2%:50% or 0.04. Similarly, the maximum ratio would then be calculated by comparing the largest percentage of the biomass resin to the smallest percentage of pigment to receive the ration of 20%:0.5% or 40. This ratio range of 0.04 to 40 encompasses the given range of the claimed invention.)
Modified Suga and Harada are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving print 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 modify the ink taught by modified Suga to also apply wherein a mass ratio (B/A) of a content B of the biomass resin to a content A of the pigment is 0.5 to 6.0 taught by Masahiro for the purpose of reducing the environmental load (Harada, paragraph [0047]), maintaining pigment dispersibility (Harada, paragraph [0037]), and preventing the coloring and printability of the ink from being insufficient (Harada, paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, Suga further discloses wherein a mass ratio (C/A) of a content C of the lignin compound to a content A of the pigment is 0.5 to 2.0. (Column 4, lines 33-35 describes the preferred ratio of the pigment to the "water-soluble resin" is from 3:2 to 10:1 which, when flipped and compared to the given range of the claimed invention, partially overlaps the given range of the claimed invention.)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1 .
Modified Suga fails to teach a biomass degree of an ink solid content is 60% to 100%.
However, Harada teaches a biomass degree of an ink solid content is 60% to 100%. (Paragraph [0047] describes the biomass polyurethane resin be contained in the polyurethane resin by 5 mass% or more in a solid content conversion, more preferably 40 mass % or more, and may be 100 mass %, which encompasses the given range of the claimed invention.)
Modified Suga and Harada are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving print 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 modify the ink taught by modified Suga to also apply a biomass degree of an ink solid content is 60% to 100% taught by Masahiro for the purpose of reducing the environmental load (Harada, paragraphs [0009] and [0047])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, Suga further discloses a polyol as the organic solvent (Column 2, lines 13-15 and 20-22 describe the "recording liquid" also including a "water-soluble organic solvent" and gave polyol examples that could be used including at least on polyhydric alcohol).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1, Suga further discloses a recording method (Paragraph [0003] describes the inclusion of an ink jet recording method in the disclosure taught by Komatsu) (Column 2, lines 23-26 describes Suga teaching an ink-jet recording method), comprising: an ink adhering step of discharging, from an ink jet head, the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1 and adhering same to a recording medium (Figure 1 A displays the "recording droplets 24" of the "ink 21" that are ejected onto the "recording medium 25" by the "recording head 65" displayed in Figure 3. The characters mentioned in Figure 1 are described in Column 6, lines 63-68 and column 7, lines 1-2, while the "recording head 65" in Figure 3 is described in column 7, lines 31-34).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (EP 2998373 B1)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1 .
Modified Suga fails to teach the dispersant includes the lignin compound in an amount that ranges between 3 to 10% by mass.
However, Ikeda teaches the dispersant includes the lignin compound in an amount that ranges between 3 to 10% by mass. ( mentioned how the dispersant could include a lignin compound, “lignin sulfonic acid”, paragraph 48. the most preferred mass percentage of 2.0 – 4.0 % which overlaps the given claimed range paragraph 0052 and paragraph)
Suga and Ikeda are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving the composition of inkjet inks. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inkjet ink taught by modified Suga to also apply a dispersant that includes the lignin compound in an amount that ranges between 3 to 10% by mass. taught by Ikeda for the purpose of improving the storage properties of the ink composition (Ikeda, paragraph [0052])
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komatsu et al. (US 20120040155 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Suga, Harada, and Jou teaches the ink jet ink composition according to claim 1 .
Modified Suga fails to teach a volume average particle diameter D50 is 300 nm or less.
However, Komatsu teaches a volume average particle diameter D50 is 300 nm or less. (Paragraph [0057] describes the "particle diameter (outer diameter) (d50)" of the white ink to be most preferably between 200 nm to 600nm which overlaps with the given range of the claimed invention.)
Modified Suga and Komatsu are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink jet recording method and 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 modify the ink taught by modified Suga to also apply a volume average particle diameter D50 is 300 nm or less taught by Komatsu for the purpose of maintaining good dispersion of the ink and color of the ink when adhered to the recording medium (Komatsu, paragraph [0057]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yoshimasa (JP 2009024071 A) which discloses a method of producing a carbon black using a raw material oil containing animal oil or vegetable oil.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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