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 Amendment
The amendment filed February 16th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Drawings have overcome each objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 28, 2025.
Drawings
The amended drawings filed on 02/16/2026 have been reconsidered. The amended drawings are accepted and the objection is withdrawn.
Specification
The amended specification paragraphs filed on 02/16/2026 have been reconsidered. The amended specification paragraphs are accepted and the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of 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.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (EP 2940085 B1) in view of Kizaki et al. (US 20210009826 A1) and Sato et al. (US 20180346742 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto et al. teach an inkjet ink composition, which is an aqueous ink (aqueous inkjet ink composition; [0011] and [0129]) comprising:
a coloring material (a pigment or pigment dispersion; [0011] and [0129]);
resin particles (acrylic resin emulsion; [0011]);
and a water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound, wherein the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound contains an amide having a normal boiling point from 215°C to 290°C (a solvent; [0011] and [0129]; solvent may be/include 2-pyrrolidone; [0131]),
wherein the resin particles are composite resin particles each formed of a first resin and a second resin that are acrylic resins (acrylic resin may be produced by a two-stage polymerization method; [0050]).
Further regarding claim 1, Matsumoto et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the content of the amide having a normal boiling point from 215°C to 290°C with respect to a total mass of the ink composition is 0.5 mass% to 9.0 mass% and wherein the mass ratio of the first resin to the second resin in each of the composite resin particles is from 1/1.8 to 2.
However, Matsumoto et al. do teach wherein the content of solvent that may be an amide with a normal boiling point from 215°C to 290°C may be 5 to 50 wt% with respect to the overall weight of the ink composition ([0131]) and wherein the weight ratio (X1/X2) of the total weight of monomers used in the first polymerization stage for the acrylic resin (X1) to the total weight of monomers used in the last polymerization stage for the acrylic resin (X2) ranges from 99/1 to 60/40 ([0048]).
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The claimed range of 0.5 mass% to 9.0 mass% of an amide overlaps with the content range of 5 to 50 wt% disclosed by Matsumoto et al. The claimed range of 1/1.8 to 2 mass ratio overlaps with the weight ratio range of 99/1 to 60/40 disclosed by Matsumoto et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inkjet ink composition such that the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound of the ink contains 0.5 mass% to 9.0 mass% of an amide having a normal boiling point of from 215° C to 290°C with respect to a total mass of the ink composition. As taught by Masumoto et al., this would have been done for the purpose of having a solvent to dissolve a surfactant or polymerization initiator for emulsification ([0094] and [0100]), and a content of the solvent within the range may be typical in the art for creating an aqueous inkjet ink composition ([0131]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mass ratio of the first resin to second resin such that the mass ratio is 1/1.8 to 2 for the purpose of controlling the viscosity of the acrylic resin as taught by Matsumoto et al ([0049]).
Further regarding claim 1, Matsumoto et al. do not teach wherein when a root sum square δph of each of the first resin and the second resin is calculated from δph=✓(δp²+δh²) where δp and δh represent a polar component and a hydrogen-bonding component of Hansen solubility parameters thereof, respectively, a δph1 of the first resin is from 4.0 MPa1/2 to 4.8 MPa1/2 , and a δph2 of the second resin is more than 2.6 MPa1/2 and less than 3.7 MPa1/2.
Kizaki et al. teach an ink composition including at least two monomers ([0009]) with Hansen solubility parameters, δp and δh, such that δp is at least 2.5 MPa1/2 and less than 5.5 MPa1/2, and δh is at least 2.5 MPa1/2 and less than 8.0 MPa1/2 ([0008]).
Sato et al. teach an inkjet ink composition ([0028]) in the form of an aqueous dispersion with a microcapsule ([0024]) wherein the microcapsule core contains multiple polymerizable compounds which can be acrylic resins ([0053];[0152]). Additionally, Sato et al. explicitly teach that a difference in SP (solubility parameter) value of 2.0 MPa1/2 or less between the two polymerizable compounds results in improved adhesion ([0092]).
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” When the disclosed values of Kizaki et al. are used in the claimed calculation for δph, the resulting range is calculated to be at least 3.5 MPa1/2 and less than 9.7 MPa1/2. The claimed δph ranges for each resin overlap with the calculated range from the disclosed values of Kizaki et al. The difference between δph1 and δph2 for the claimed invention is lower than 2.2 MPa1/2 and more than 0.3 MPa1/2. The range of difference between δph1 and δph2 overlap with the disclosed SP value difference range of Sato et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inkjet ink composition wherein a δph1 of the first resin is from 4.0 MPa1/2 to 4.8 MPa1/2 and a δph2 of the second resin is more than 2.6 MPa1/2 and less than 3.7 MPa1/2 for the purpose of improving adhesiveness or abrasion resistance as taught by Sato et al. ([0092]) and improving ejection stability as taught by Kizaki et al. ([0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto et al. teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the composite resin particles each have a phase-separated structure in which a phase formed of the first resin and a phase formed of the second resin are separated from each other (acrylic resin may be produced by a two-stage polymerization method; [0050]; first polymerization stage, a monomer component (I) with acid-group-containing monomer (1a) and a (meth) acrylate monomer (1b); [0051]; subsequent second polymerization stage, a monomer component (II) with acid-group-containing monomer (2a) and a (meth)acrylate monomer (2b); [0073]),
and the phase formed of the first resin is included in the phase formed of the second resin (subsequent second polymerization stage is added to the polymer obtained in the first stage for further polymerization; [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto et al. do not explicitly teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein a mass ratio (first resin/second resin) of the first resin to the second resin in each of the composite resin particles is from 1 to 2.
However, Matsumoto et al. do teach wherein the weight ratio (X1/X2) of the total weight of monomers used in the first polymerization stage for the acrylic resin (X1) to the total weight of monomers used in the last polymerization stage for the acrylic resin (X2) ranges from 99/1 to 60/40 ([0048]). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The claimed range of 1 to 2 mass ratio overlaps with the weight ratio range of 99/1 to 60/40 disclosed by Matsumoto et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mass ratio of the first resin to second resin such that the mass ratio is 1/1.8 to 2 for the purpose of controlling the viscosity of the acrylic resin as taught by Matsumoto et al ([0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto et al. teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the composite resin particles are resin particles dispersed with a reactive surfactant (“a surfactant is preferably used for the preparation of the acrylic resin emulsion”; [0083]; “Examples of the surfactant include anionic, cationic and nonionic reactive surfactants”; [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto et al. teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the reactive surfactant is anionic (“The anionic reactive surfactant is not particularly limited, as long as it is anionic and reactive”; [0087]).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto et al. teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the reactive surfactant has an oxyalkylene group (“examples of commercially available… anionic reactive surfactant include… ADEKA REASOAP SR-10 and ADEKA REASOAP SR-20”; [0089]-[0090]; formulas (2), (5), (8), (9), (10), and (11) demonstrate having an oxyethylene group (-OCH2CH2-); [0087]).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto et al. do not explicitly teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the composite resin particles have a volume-average particle diameter of from 90 nm to 250 nm.
However, Matsumoto et al. do teach an inkjet ink composition wherein the average particle diameter (nm) of the composite resin fine particle is preferably from 60 to 150 nm ([0037]). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The claimed volume-average particle diameter range of 90 to 250 nm overlaps with the average particle diameter range of 60 to 150 nm taught by Matsumoto et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inkjet ink composition wherein the composite resin particles have a volume-average particle diameter of from 90 nm to 250 nm for the purpose of controlling glossiness and amount of required emulsifier and resulting economic efficiency as taught by Matsumoto at al. ([0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto et al. do not teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the composite resin particles are resin particles neutralized with at least one of an organic amine or ammonia (a 5 to 10% ammonia aqueous solution is added and stirred into the acrylic resin emulsion until complete neutralization; [0135]).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto et al. do not explicitly teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the composite resin particles each have an acid value of from 5 mgKOH/g to 35 mgKOH/g.
However, Matsumoto et al. do teach an inkjet ink composition wherein the acrylic resin have an acid value preferably from 1 to 30 mgKOH/g ([0018]). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The claimed acid value range of 5 to 35 mgKOH/g overlaps with the acid value range of 1 to 30 mgKOH/g taught by Matsumoto et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inkjet ink composition wherein the composite resin particles each have an acid value of from 5 mgKOH/g to 35 mgKOH/g for the purpose of controlling water resistance and stability as taught by Matsumoto at al. ([0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto et al. do not explicitly teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the first resin and the second resin each have a glass transition temperature of from 60°C to 95°C.
However, Matsumoto et al. do teach an inkjet ink composition wherein the acrylic resin have a glass transition temperature of the acrylic resin is preferably 40°C to 100°C ([0121]). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The claimed glass transition temperature range of 60°C to 95°C lies inside with the glass transition temperature range of 40°C to 100°C taught by Matsumoto et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inkjet ink composition wherein the first resin and the second resin each have a glass transition temperature of from 60°C to 95°C for the purpose of controlling film formability and reducing poor physical properties of the ink as taught by Matsumoto at al. ([0122]).
Claims 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (EP 2940085 B1) as modified by Kizaki et al. (US 20210009826 A1) and Sato et al. (US 20180346742 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Seguchi et al. (US 20190218405 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto et al. as modified by Kizaki et al. and Sato et al. do not explicitly teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein a content of the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound is 30 mass% or less with respect to the total mass of the ink, and a ratio of a water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound having a normal boiling point of 210°C or less to a total mass of the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound is 50 mass% or more.
However, Matsumoto et al. do teach wherein the content of solvent is 5 to 50 wt% with respect to the overall weight of the ink composition ([0131]).
Seguchi et al. teach an inkjet ink composition wherein the organic solvent ([0111]) content is from 25 to 30 mass% relative to the total mass of the ink composition ([0121]), however Seguchi et al. do not explicitly teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein a ratio of a water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound having a normal boiling point of 210°C or less to a total mass of the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound is 50 mass% or more.
However, Seguchi et al do teach a water-based inkjet ink composition wherein the content of the organic solvent with a standard boiling point of 150°C to 260°C is most preferably from 15 to 30 mass% relative to the total mass of the ink composition ([0120]) and the total content of organic solvent in the is most preferably 25 to 30 mass% relative to the total mass of the ink composition ([0121]). Therefore, the ratio of the content of the organic solvent with a standard boiling point of 150°C to 260°C to the total content of the organic solvent exists in the range of 50% to 100%.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The claimed range of content of the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound of 30 mass% or less overlaps with the range of 5 to 50 wt% of solvent disclosed by Matsumoto et al. and the range of 25 to 30 mass% disclosed by Seguchi et al. The claimed boiling point range of 210°C or less overlaps with the disclosed boiling point range of Seguchi et al., and the claimed total mass ratio range of 50 mass% or more is anticipated by the mass range of Seguchi et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inkjet ink composition wherein a content of the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound is 30 mass% or less with respect to the total mass of the ink, and the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound having a normal boiling point of 210°C or less to a total mass of the water-soluble low-molecular weight organic compound is 50 mass% or more for the purpose of improving continuous discharge stability and abrasion resistance as taught by Seguchi et al. ([0120]-[0121]).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto et al. as modified by Kizaki et al. and Sato et al. teach the inkjet ink composition as one that can be used with a high viscosity inkjet head ([0012]) and a method of ink adhesion wherein the ink is applied to a sheet using a bar coater ([0160]), however a recording method comprising an ink adhesion step of ejecting the inkjet ink composition from an inkjet head to cause the composition to adhere to a recording medium is not explicitly taught.
Seguchi et al. teach a recording method comprising an ink adhesion step of ejecting the inkjet ink composition from an inkjet head to cause the composition to adhere to a recording medium (The inkjet recording method of this embodiment comprises a step of heating a recording medium, and an adherence step in which the water-based inkjet ink composition is discharged from a head and made to adhere to the recording medium heated in the heating step; [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a recording method comprising an ink adhesion step of ejecting an inkjet ink composition from an inkjet head to cause the composition to adhere to a recording medium for the purpose of adhering the ink to a medium and having a continuous discharge of the ink as taught by Seguchi et al. ([0158]).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto et al. as modified by Kizaki et al. and Sato et al. teach a recording method further comprising a post-drying step of heating the recording medium at from 50°C to 110°C after the ink adhesion step (after ink is applied to a sheet, the resulting sheet is put in an oven at 100°C to form and dry the film; [0160]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (EP 2940085 B1) as modified by Kizaki et al. (US 20210009826 A1) and Sato et al. (US 20180346742 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Uchida (US 20200198358 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto et al. as modified by Kizaki et al. and Sato et al. do not teach an inkjet ink composition, wherein the composite resin particles are soap-free type resin particles.
Uchida teaches an inkjet ink composition with soap-free type resin particles (An ink composition according to the present disclosure is an ink composition to be used in an ink jet recording apparatus, the ink composition including a self-dispersing pigment, a soap-free resin, and water; [0009]; In this embodiment, the ink composition contains a resin emulsion which is referred to as a soap-free resin; [0050]; Resin particles that can be used for the resin emulsion are preferably formed of one or two or more resins selected from the group consisting of an acrylic resin; [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inkjet ink composition wherein the composite resin particles are soap-free type resin particles to for the purpose of improving the fixing property and robustness or abrasion resistance of an image as taught by Uchida ([0050]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (EP 2940085 B1) as modified by Kizaki et al. (US 20210009826 A1) and Sato et al. (US 20180346742 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Asakawa et al. (US 20220064472 A1).
Regarding claim 13, , Matsumoto et al. as modified by Kizaki et al. and Sato et al. do not teach an inkjet ink composition, further comprising 1 mass% or less of a surfactant that is free from being a dispersant for the resin particles.
Asakawa et al. do not explicitly teach an inkjet ink composition, further comprising 1 mass% or less of a surfactant that is free from being a dispersant for the resin particles.
However, Asakawa et al. do teach an ink composition with a surfactant ( The ink composition is a water-based composition containing a coloring material and a surfactant; [0017]) wherein a surfactant A not used as a resin dispersant (Surfactant A is less hydrophobic (more hydrophilic) than surfactant B described later herein and unlikely to dissolve resin components; [0024]), and the surfactant A is 0.05 to 5 mass% of the ink composition ([0029]). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The claimed range of mass% of surfactant not used as a dispersant overlaps with the disclosed range of mass% of surfactant A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inkjet ink composition further comprising 1 mass% or less of a surfactant that is free from being a dispersant for the resin particles for the purpose of improving the clogging recoverability as taught by Asakawa et al. ([0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drugfuture.com article on 2-Pyrrolidone discloses the uses of 2-pyrrolidone, specifically its use as a solvent for polymers and its use in specialty printer inks.
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 KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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, DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
19 March 2026
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights