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 I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that an undue burden would not be placed upon the Examiner (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 1). However, this is not found to be persuasive as the two inventions are related to different categories of invention that would require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), thereby resulting in a serious burden. Therefore, the restriction/election requirement is still deemed proper and is made final.
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohashi et al. (JP-2018053171-A), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Ohashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi teaches a set (see Ohashi at pg. 15, last paragraph, teaching a pretreatment liquid and a textile inkjet ink which may be used together as an ink set) comprising:
• a reaction solution composition; and an ink jet ink composition (see Ohashi at pg. 15, last paragraph, teaching a pretreatment liquid and a textile inkjet ink which may be used together as an ink set; the pretreatment liquid of Ohashi corresponds to the claimed “reaction solution”), wherein
• the reaction solution composition contains a cationic urethane resin, a water-soluble organic solvent, and water (see Ohashi at pg. 16, para. 3, teaching the pretreatment liquid to contain an aggregating agent, such as a cationic compound; also see Ohashi at pg. 17, para. 6 and 9, teaching the cationic compound may include a cationic resin, such as a urethane-based resin like Superflex 620; Superflex 620 is a cationic urethane resin, as disclosed by Applicant’s specification at para. 0027; also see Ohashi at pg. 18, last paragraph, teaching the pretreatment liquid contains water; also see Ohashi at pg. 19, para. 2, teaching the pretreatment liquid contains a water-soluble organic solvent),
• the ink jet ink composition contains a pigment, a crosslinkable urethane resin, and water (see Ohashi at pg. 2, para. 4, teaching the inkjet ink as containing a self-dispersing pigment; also see Ohashi at pg. 4, para. 5, teaching the ink as containing a urethane resin dispersion having a crosslinkable group; also see Ohashi at pg. 8, para. 13, teaching the ink as containing water); and
• the set is used to jet the reaction solution composition and the ink jet ink composition by an ink jet method to make the reaction solution composition and the ink jet ink composition adhere to a fabric (see Ohashi at pg. 13, last paragraph – pg. 14, para. 3, teaching the pretreatment liquid may be applied to the fabric via an inkjet method; also see Ohashi at pg. 14, para. 5-6, teaching the inkjet ink as being inkjet printed to an area on the fabric where the pretreatment liquid has been applied; alternatively, the claimed limitation is notably a limitation of intended use; since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the limitation, see MPEP § 2111).
Regarding claim 2, see Ohashi at pg. 19, para. 2, teaching the water-soluble solvent used in the pretreatment liquid may include those solvents used in the textile printing ink; also see Ohashi at pg. 9, para. 4, teaching glycerin as a suitable solvent in the ink; accordingly, Ohashi necessarily teaches the pretreatment liquid may contain glycerin as a solvent.
Regarding claim 6, Superflex 620 is a cationic ester-based urethane resin, as disclosed by Applicant’s specification at para. 0191.
Regarding claim 8, see Ohashi at pg. 13, para. 5, teaching the fabric may be a polyester.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi.
Regarding claim 3, see Ohashi at pg. 18, second to last paragraph, teaching the content of the cationic organic compound may range from 0.1% to 40% in the pretreatment liquid; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, while Ohashi teaches the set according to claim 1 outlined above, Ohashi fails to explicitly teach the reaction solution as further comprising a polyvalent metal salt.
However, Ohashi teaches the pretreatment liquid to contain a flocculant, and that multiple types of flocculants may be used together (see Ohashi at pg. 16, para. 4). Ohashi further teaches the flocculant may include a polyvalent metal salt or a cationic resin (see Ohashi at pg. 16, para. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use both a polyvalent metal salt and a cationic resin (i.e., Superflex 620) together as the flocculant in the pretreatment liquid of Ohashi, because Ohashi teaches both as suitable flocculants and further teaches that multiple flocculants may be used together (see Ohashi at pg. 16, para. 3-4). Moreover, combining two or more materials disclosed by the prior art for the same purpose to form a third material that is to be used for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugimoto (US-20240034898-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Sugimoto”), with evidence from Hirade et al. (US-20240218593-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Hirade”) as to the rejection of claim 5 only.
Regarding claims 4-5, while Ohashi teaches the set according to claim 1 outlined above, Ohashi fails to explicitly teach the set as further comprising a post-treatment liquid composition, wherein the post-treatment liquid composition contains particles containing an organopolysiloxane, and water, wherein the particles containing an organopolysiloxane includes particles containing amino-modified silicone (regarding claim 5).
However, Sugimoto teaches an inkjet processing solution containing a cationic polymer (see Sugimoto at para. 0017). Sugimoto further teaches the processing solution may be applied to a polyester fabric, and may be used together with an aqueous ink containing a pigment, a solvent such as glycerin, and a binder such as a urethane resin (see Sugimoto at para. 0061-0062, 0067, 0069, 0072, and 0084). Moreover, Sugimoto teaches a post-processing solution may be used that exhibits a function of enhancing fixability and ruggedness (resistance to rubbing and scraping) of an ink image printed on the recording target (see Sugimoto at para. 0056). Additionally, Sugimoto teaches an example post-processing solution, which contains a silicone oil emulsion POLON-MF-51, propylene glycol, and water as a balance (see Sugimoto at para. 0115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the post-processing solution of Sugimoto, which contains POLON-MF-51, propylene glycol, and water, together with the pretreatment liquid and ink of Ohashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance fixability and ruggedness (resistance to rubbing and scraping) of an ink image printed on the recording target (see Sugimoto at para. 0056).
POLON-MF-51 is an amino-modified organopolysiloxane, as evidenced by Hirade at para. 0088.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ishida (US-20210371687-A1) teaches a white ink jet ink composition and a treatment liquid (see Ishida at Abstract).
Willems et al. (US-20180326770-A1) teach a pre-treatment composition and a post-treatment composition (see Willems at Abstract and para. 0149).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/JEFFREY EUGENE BARZACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights