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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4-7, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 4-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 2018-030957 A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (JP 2018-030957 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura et al. teaches an ink comprising of water (paragraph [0008]), a water-soluble organic solvent comprising at least one member selected from the group consisting of glycol ethers and glycols having six or more carbon atoms (paragraph [0069]), a resin comprising an acrylic silicone resin (paragraph [0020]) and a urethane resin (paragraph [0032]) at a mass ration of 1:1 to 1:3 (paragraph [0067]) and the urethane comprising at least one member selected from the group consisting of polyester-based urethane resins and polyether-based urethane resins (paragraph [0033]), a pigment (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and the acrylic silicone resin is in the form of particles having a volume average particle diameter of from 10 nm to 300 nm (paragraph [0026]), and the urethane resin is in the form of particles having a volume average particle diameter of from 10 nm to 300 nm (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and that the dry matter of the fabric inkjet ink has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of from −40°C to 25°C (paragraph [0028])
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and teaches wherein the pigment is a resin-covered pigment (paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura et al. teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as stated above and a method of applying the ink to a base material (paragraph [0104]) and heating the base material to which the fabric inkjet ink is applied to 120°C or higher (paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura et al. teaches all the elements of claim 5 as stated above and recorded matter recorded by the inkjet recording method (paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura et al. teaches all the elements of claim 5 as stated above and wherein the base material is fabric (paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura et al. teaches all the elements of claim 7 as stated above and wherein said fabric is selected from the group consisting of a woven fabric, knitted fabric, woven cloth and an unwoven cloth (paragraph [0100] in that cloth in encompasses both woven and unwoven cloth).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2018-030957 A) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20190352528 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura et al. teaches all the elements of claim 7 as stated above but fails to teach where said fabric is comprised of cotton fiber. However, Yamazaki et al. teaches it is well known in the art to print an ink on a fabric wherein said fabric is cotton (paragraph [0087]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to perform the inkjet recording method of Nakamura et al. to print the ink onto cotton as suggested by Yamazaki et al. as this would be an obvious application of fabric inkjet inks onto known materials within the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hagiwara et al. (US 20200095444 A1) and Matsumoto et al. (WO 2017168817 A1) are disclosed as having similar compositions of ink as the claim invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853