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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 8/29/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 2-3 are cancelled and claims 1 and 4-10 are pending.
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.
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 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan et al (JP H10-237776A) in view of Ona et al (EP 0 989 226 A2) and further in view of Kitagawa (US 2014/0186533 A1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Gan et al (JP H10-237776A).
Regarding claim 1, Gan discloses a coating liquid composition for pigment printing (color deepening agent; paragraph [0013]), comprising emulsified particles containing a silicone oil (amino-modified silicone that has been emulsified and in the form of an emulsion and containing silicone oil; paragraph [0015]), water (paragraph [0013]); wherein the content of the emulsified particles is 25% by mass or more and 40% by mass or less based on the total amount of the coating liquid composition for pigment printing (amount of amino-modified silicone is 0.01% to 30% by weight; paragraph [0016]).
The coating liquid composition for pigment printing is an intended use limitation that would be inherently met by the color deepening agent of Gan. The color deepening agent of Gan would be capable of being used as a coating liquid composition for pigment printing.
The amount of amino-modified silicone overlaps the claimed range for the content of emulsified particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have a desirable deep color effect that is economically advantageous (paragraph [0016] of Gan). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Gan does not disclose the coating liquid composition for pigment printing comprising a content of the silicone oil being 72.5 to 87.5% by mass based on a content of the emulsified particles.
However, Ona discloses a coating liquid composition for pigment printing (water-based fiber treatment agent) comprising a content of the silicone oil based on a content of the emulsified particles (100 parts of component A where component A is silicone oil that has been emulsified; paragraph [0007]).
The amount of component A of silicone oil is 100 weight parts. The amount of component B is 5 to 200 weight parts of silicone rubber powder. The percentage of silicone oil based on the total mass of water-based fiber treatment agent is 50% (100/200) to 100% (100/5; this endpoint cannot be more than 100%). This range overlaps the claimed range for the content of the silicone oil being 72.5 to 87.5% by mass based on a content of the emulsified particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide smoothness and lubricity to the fibers (paragraphs [0002], [0004] and [0007] of Ona) while not using excess silicone oil as a means for reducing cost as too little silicone oil would not provide the desired smoothness and lubricity to the fibers and too much silicone oil would provide a water-based fiber treatment agent that is expensive to make. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Paragraphs [0002], [0004] and [0007] of Ona discloses silicone oil providing smoothness and lubricity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating liquid composition (color deepening agent) of Gan to include the amount of silicone oil for the silicone oil Gan because having the required silicone oil provides smoothness and lubricity to the fibers (paragraphs [0002], [0004] and [0007] of Ona) while not using excess silicone oil as a means for reducing cost as too little silicone oil would not provide the desired smoothness and lubricity to the fibers and too much silicone oil would provide a water-based fiber treatment agent that is expensive to make.
Gan does not disclose the coating liquid composition for pigment printing comprising at least one crosslinking agent selected from the group consisting of an isocyanate crosslinking agent, an oxazoline crosslinking agent, and a carbodiimide crosslinking agent,.
However, Kitagawa discloses a coating liquid composition for pigment printing comprising at least one crosslinking agent selected from an isocyanate crosslinking agent (a method comprising post-treatment comprising a crosslinking agent and comprising Fixer N; paragraphs [0186] and [0277]). Fixer N is a crosslinking agent of a blocked polyisocyanate compound (see paragraph [0188] of Kitagawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating liquid composition (color deepening agent) of Gan to include the crosslinking agent of Fixer N in the color deepening agent of Gan because doing so provides a desired crosslinking structure for the color deepening agent.
Regarding claim 4, Gan, Ona and Kitagawa disclose the coating liquid composition for pigment printing of claim 1 as noted above and Gan discloses the coating liquid composition for pigment printing (color deepening agent) comprising an organic solvent (epichlorohydrin; paragraphs [0029]-[0032]) and wherein the content of the organic solvent is not more than 10.0% by mass based on the total amount of the coating liquid composition (amino-modified silicone oil formed from 20 parts aminoalkyl-modified dimethylpolysiloxane emulsified with 5 parts nonionic surface and 83 parts water and the aminoalkyl-modified dimethylpolysiloxane comprising 0.80 grams ethylene epichlorohydrin; paragraphs [0029]-[0032] and [0034]).
The amount of ethylene chlorohydrin for forming the aminoalkyl-modified dimethylpolysiloxane of the amino-modified silicone emulsion would be present in a trace amount of the product that is then mixed with the other ingredients (see paragraph [0034] of Han). This trace amount would be less than 10% by weight of the amino-modified silicone emulsion.
Regarding claim 5, Gan discloses a recording method (deep coloring method; paragraph [0020]) comprising a coating step of applying the coating liquid composition for pigment printing onto an image formed on a recording medium (applying the color deepening agent onto a surface of a colored fiber structure and onto a surface of printed matters; paragraph [0020]) and wherein Gan, Ona and Kitagawa disclose the coating liquid composition for pigment printing of claim 1 as noted above.
Regarding claim 6, Gan, Ona and Kitagawa discloses the recording method according to claim 5 as noted above and Gan discloses the recording method (deep coloring method; paragraph [0020]) comprising, wherein in the coating step, the application of the coating liquid composition is performed by a coating method (the applying comprising immersion, exhaustion or spraying; paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Gan, Ona and Kitagawa disclose the recording method according to claim 5 as noted above and Gan discloses the recording method (deep coloring method; paragraph [0020]) further comprising a drying step of drying the coating liquid composition for pigment printing applied to the recording medium (drying the colored fiber structure; paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Gan, Ona and Kitagawa discloses the recording method according to claim 5 as noted above and Gan discloses the recording method (deep coloring method; paragraph [0020]) comprising wherein the recording medium is a blended fabric (fiber structure comprising an acetate-polyester blended fabric; paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Gan, Ona and Kitagawa discloses the recording method according to claim 5 as noted above.
Gan does not disclose discloses the recording method (deep coloring method; paragraph [0020]) comprising a pretreatment step of applying and attaching a pretreatment liquid to the recording medium.
However, Kitagawa discloses a recording method (method for inkjet textile printing) comprising a pretreatment step of applying and attaching a pretreatment liquid to the recording medium pretreating a textile fiber product with a cationic surfactant and a blocked polyisocyanate compound (applying and attaching a pretreatment liquid to the recording medium; paragraph [0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the recording method (color deepening method) of Gan to include the pretreating step of Kitagawa before the step of applying the color deepening agent of Gan because having the required pretreating allows for inkjet printing of an aqueous pigment ink to be performed brilliantly and with high density while preventing bleeding and penetration to the maximum possible extent (paragraph [0033] of Kitagawa).
Regarding claim 10, Gan discloses a recorded product (color deepened fiber structure) comprising an overcoat layer formed from the coating liquid composition for pigment printing (color deepening agent onto a surface of a colored fiber structure; paragraph [0020) and wherein Gan, Ona and Kitagawa disclose the coating liquid composition for pigment printing of claim 1 as noted above wherein the recorded product has a diffuse reflectance of less than 3% in the wavelength range of 300 to 800 nm.
The recorded product being for pigment printing is an intended use limitation that would be inherently met by the color deepened fiber structure of Gan.
Since the structure of the recorded product of Gan, Ona and Kitagawa is the same as the recorded product as claimed in claim 10, the recorded product of Gan, Ona and Kitagawa would inherently have a diffuse reflectance of less than 3% in the wavelength range of 300 nm to 800 nm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicants argue that Gan does not disclose a content of the silicone oil being 72.5 to 87.5% by mass based on a content of the emulsified particles.
This argument is moot as Gan does not disclose a content of the silicone oil being 72.5 to 87.5% by mass based on a content of the emulsified particles. Therefore, the previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicants argue that the combined prior art fails to teach or suggest all of the elements of the claims.
This argument is moot as Gan does not disclose a content of the silicone oil being 72.5 to 87.5% by mass based on a content of the emulsified particles. Therefore, the previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Kitagawa does not cure the deficiencies of Gan.
This argument is not persuasive as Kitagawa is a teaching reference used to teach a crosslinking agent of Fixer N.
However, note that while Kitagawa does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kitagawa is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely a crosslinking agent of Fixer N, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785