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 II, claim 10, in the reply filed on 04 March 2026 is acknowledged. Furthermore, it is noted by the examiner that nonelected claims 2-9 have been amended to depend from independent claim 10 in Group II. Accordingly, the pending claims of elected Group II are claims 2-10. The traversal is on the ground(s) that an examination of all the claimed subject matter would not be a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because, as noted above, all pending claims 2-10 are drawn to a single invention (i.e., a method of performing maintenance on an ink jet recording apparatus), and thus, no claims of Group I, drawn to an aqueous maintenance liquid, are pending.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than one page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 provides for the use of an aqueous maintenance liquid, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). Instant claims 2-9 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 10. Appropriate correction and or clarification is required.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “normal boiling point” in lines 10 and 18 of independent claim 10 and in line 3 of claim 4. The limitation “normal boiling point” renders the claim vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation “normal boiling point”. Furthermore, the specification does not contain guidelines describing what numerical values are encompassed by the limitation “normal boiling point”. The examiner suggests that the limitation “normal boiling point” should be amended to recite “boiling point”. Instant claims 2-3 and 5-9 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 10. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the preamble “The maintenance liquid according to claim 10”. Since claims 2-9 now depend from claim 10, the preamble should recite “The method according to claim 10” for antecedent basis purposes. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al, US 2018/0298214, with IPCS INCHEM, Product Literature of Propylene Glycol.
Takahashi et al, US 2018/0298214, discloses 1) an aqueous ink jet composition comprising a pigment (i.e., a coloring material), propylene glycol, and water, and 2) an ink jet recording apparatus containing a discharging head (see abstract and paragraph 6). It is further taught by Takahashi et al that head of the ink jet recording apparatus is cleaned by flushing the head with the aqueous ink jet composition (see paragraph 38), that the propylene glycol is present in the aqueous ink jet composition in an amount of 25 parts by mass of the composition (see paragraph 23), that propylene glycol has a boiling point of 188.2 degrees Celsius (see page 1 of IPCS INCHEM, Product Literature of Propylene Glycol), that the aqueous ink jet composition contains up to 5% by mass of a nitrogen containing surfactant (see paragraphs 32-34), and that the aqueous ink jet composition is adjusted to a pH of 7-11 with a pH adjuster, such as triethanolamine in an amount of 1 part by mass (see paragraphs 36, 55-56, and Examples 6-7 in Table 1), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 6-7 in Table 1. Although Takahashi et al is silent with respect to the surface tension of their aqueous ink jet composition, the examiner asserts that the aqueous ink jet compositions disclosed in Takahashi et al would inherently meet the surface tension requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Although Takahashi et al generally discloses an aqueous ink jet composition for cleaning the head of an ink jet recording apparatus containing 25 parts by mass of propylene glycol, the reference does not require such an aqueous ink jet composition containing this component with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated an aqueous ink jet composition for cleaning the head of an ink jet recording apparatus, as taught by Takahashi et al, which contained 25 parts by mass of propylene glycol, because such aqueous ink jet compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Takahashi et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such an aqueous ink jet composition for cleaning the head of an ink jet recording apparatus containing 25 parts by mass of propylene glycol is expressly suggested by the Takahashi et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights