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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/9/2026, 6/2/2026, 9/2/2025 and 9/9/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Ueki et al. (US 2015/0267067 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
Ueki et al. disclose an ink set comprising:
a first ink (e.g. M ink of Example 3-2) that contains a colorant, a surfactant, and water (paragraphs 616-628); and
a second ink (e.g. Y ink of Example 3-2) that contains a colorant, a surfactant, and water (paragraphs 616-628),
wherein the first ink and the second ink have hue different from each other (paragraph 440 & Fig. 1), and
wherein, in a case in which a dynamic surface tension of the first is at 10 ms is defined as ɤ1(10) mN/m, a dynamic surface tension of the first ink at 1000 ms is defined as ɤ1(1000) mN/m, and a dynamic surface tension of the second ink 10 ms is defined as ɤ2(10) mN/m, both ɤ1(10) and ɤ2(10) are 35 or less (TABLE8), and the following expressions are satisfied:
0 ≤ ɤ2(10) - ɤ1(10) (0 ≤ 27.4 – 27.1, per TABLE 8)
0 ≤ ɤ2(10) - ɤ1(1000) ≤ 3.0 (0 ≤ 27.4 – 25.7 ≤ 3.0 per TABLE 8)
Insofar as Ueki et al. does not expressly disclose the dynamic surface tension at 10 ms, please note the direction of change and the negligible amount of change in disclosed dynamic surface tensions over the timeframe between 1 ms and 1000 ms. Therefore, Ueki et al.’s disclosed dynamic surface tension at 1 ms is used as a proxy for the dynamic surface tension at 10 ms.
Regarding claim 11:
Ueki et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and also that the first ink and the second ink are two inks selected from the group consisting of a yellow ink, a magenta ink, a cyan ink, and a black ink (paragraph 440 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12:
Ueki et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and also that both the first ink and the second ink contain a silicone-based surfactant (paragraphs 343-345 & TABLE 6).
Regarding claim 13:
Ueki et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 12, and also that a content of the silicone-based surfactant in the first ink is 0.4% by mass or greater with respect to a total amount of the first ink (TABLE 6), and a content of the silicone-based surfactant in the second ink is 0.4% by mass or greater with respect to a total amount of the second ink (TABLE 6).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki et al. (US 2015/0267067 A1) in view of Kojima (US 2005/0062776 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Ueki et al. disclose an ink jet recording method comprising:
jetting a first ink (e.g. M ink of Example 3-2) from a first ink jet head (122M) to a recording medium (P: paragraph 440 & Fig. 1); and
jetting a second ink (e.g. Y ink of Example 3-2), having a hue that is different from a hue of the first ink, from a second ink jet head (122Y) to a region of the recording medium onto which the first ink will be applied (paragraph 440 & Fig. 1),
wherein, in a case in which a time taken from jetting the first ink from the first ink jet head to jetting the second ink from the second ink jet head is defined as T ms,
a dynamic surface tension of the first ink at T ms is defined as ɤ1(T) mN/m,
a dynamic surface tension of the first ink at 10 ms is defined as ɤ1(10) mN/m, and
a dynamic surface tension of the second ink at 10 ms is defined as ɤ2(10) mN/m,
T is in a range of from 80 to 1000,
wherein the following expressions are satisfied:
0 ≤ ɤ2(10) - ɤ1(T) ≤ 3.0 (where T = 1000ms, 0 ≤ 27.4 – 25.7 ≤ 3.0 per TABLE 8)
0 ≤ ɤ2(10) - ɤ1(10) (0 ≤ 27.4 – 27.1, per TABLE 8)
Insofar as Ueki et al. does not expressly disclose the dynamic surface tension at 10 ms, please note the direction of change and the negligible amount of change in disclosed dynamic surface tensions over the timeframe between 1 ms and 1000 ms. Therefore, Ueki et al.’s disclosed dynamic surface tension at 1 ms is used as a proxy for the dynamic surface tension at 10 ms.
Ueki et al. do not expressly disclose that the second ink is jetted to a region of the recording medium onto which the first ink has already been applied.
However, Kojima et al. teach an ink jet recording method that enables retouching of an image (paragraph 11) in which ink is jetted during conveyance in both forward and reverse directions (paragraphs 90-91 & Fig. 1), such that a first ink may be jetted either before or after a second ink (Fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ueki et al.’s method to enable jetting in both forward and reverse directions, as taught by Kojima et al.
Regarding claim 2:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Ueki et al. also disclose that the first ink and the second ink are two inks selected from the group consisting of a yellow ink, a magenta ink, a cyan ink, and a black ink (paragraph 440 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Ueki et al. also disclose that a value obtained by subtracting ɤ1(10) from ɤ2(10) is 2.0 or less (27.1 – 27.4 ≤ 0, per TABLE 8).
Regarding claim 4:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Ueki et al. also disclose that both ɤ1(10) and ɤ2(10) are 35 or less (TABLE 8).
Regarding claim 5:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Ueki et al. also disclose that both the first ink and the second ink contain a silicone-based surfactant (paragraphs 343-345 & TABLE 6).
Regarding claim 6:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 5, and Ueki et al. also disclose that a content of the silicone-based surfactant in the first ink is 0.4% by mass or greater with respect to a total amount of the first ink (TABLE 6), and a content of the silicone-based surfactant in the second ink is 0.4% by mass or greater with respect to a total amount of the second ink (TABLE 6).
Regarding claim 9:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Ueki et al. also disclose that the method comprises:
jetting a third ink (K), having a hue that is different from the hue of the first ink (M) and the hue of the second ink (Y), from a third ink jet head (122K) to a region of the recording medium onto which the first ink and the second ink will be applied in an overlapping manner (Fig. 1),
wherein, in a case in which a time taken from jetting the second ink from the second ink jet head to jetting the third ink from the third ink jet head is defined as TX ms,
a dynamic surface tension of the second ink at TX ms is defined as ɤ2(TX) mN/m,
a dynamic surface tension of the second ink at 10 ms is defined as ɤ2(10) mN/m, and
a dynamic surface tension of the third ink at 10 ms is defined as ɤ3(10 mN/m,
wherein the following expressions are satisfied:
0 ≤ ɤ3(10) - ɤ2(T) ≤ 3.0 (where T = 1000ms, 0 ≤ 28.4 – 26.1 ≤ 3.0 per TABLE 8)
0 ≤ ɤ3(10) - ɤ2(10) (0 ≤ 28.4 – 27.4, per TABLE 8); and
Kojima also discloses that the third ink may be jetted to a region of medium onto which the first ink and second ink have been applied in an overlapping manner (paragraphs 90-91 & Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki et al. as modified by Kojima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gotou et al. (US 2020/0239714 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 5, and Ueki et al. also dislcose that the silicone-based surfactant has a structure comprising polyether group, such as a propyleneoxy group or an ethyleneoxy group (paragraph 343).
However, Ueki et al.’s modified method does not expressly disclose the particular structure of the polyether modified silicone-based surfactant.
However, Gotou et al. disclose an ink jet ink comprising a polyether modified silicone based surfactant that provides an ink free of defective discharging (paragraphs 154-155), the surfactant being represented by claimed Formula 3 (see formula IX: paragraph 156), wherein R1 independently represents an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms or a hydroxy group (paragraph 156), R2 represents an alkanediyl group having 2 to 5 carbon atoms (paragraph 156), R3 represents a hydrogen atom, an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, or a hydroxy group (paragraphs 156-157), PO represents a popyleneoxy group, EO represents an ethyleneoxy group (paragraph 156), and a, b, m, and n represent an average addition mole number of each unit, a being in a range of from 0 to 10 (paragraph 157), b being in a range of from 1 to 50 (paragraph 157), m being in a range of from 1 to 500 (paragraph 157), and n being in a range of from 1 to 50 (paragraph 157).
Because Ueki et al. and Gotou et al. both disclose the use of polyether modified silicone based surfactants, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of invention, to consult Gotou et al. for a particular surfactant structure. Moreover, Gotou et al. teaches the benefits of using such a particular surfactant.
Regarding claim 8:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 7, and Gotou et al. also disclose that, in Formula 3, a is 0 (paragraph 157, b is in a range of from 1 to 15 (paragraph 157), m is in a range of from 1 to 10 (paragraph 157), and n is in a range of from 1 to 5 (paragraph 157).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki et al. (US 2015/0267067 A1) in view of further in view of Gotou et al. (US 2020/0239714 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
Ueki et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and also that the silicone-based surfactant has a structure comprising polyether group, such as a propyleneoxy group or an ethyleneoxy group (paragraph 343).
However, Ueki et al. do not expressly disclose the particular structure of the polyether modified silicone-based surfactant.
However, Gotou et al. disclose an ink jet ink comprising a polyether modified silicone based surfactant that provides an ink free of defective discharging (paragraphs 154-155), the surfactant being represented by claimed Formula 3 (see formula IX: paragraph 156), wherein R1 independently represents an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms or a hydroxy group (paragraph 156), R2 represents an alkanediyl group having 2 to 5 carbon atoms (paragraph 156), R3 represents a hydrogen atom, an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, or a hydroxy group (paragraphs 156-157), PO represents a popyleneoxy group, EO represents an ethyleneoxy group (paragraph 156), and a, b, m, and n represent an average addition mole number of each unit, a being in a range of from 0 to 10 (paragraph 157), b being in a range of from 1 to 50 (paragraph 157), m being in a range of from 1 to 500 (paragraph 157), and n being in a range of from 1 to 50 (paragraph 157).
Because Ueki et al. and Gotou et al. both disclose the use of polyether modified silicone based surfactants, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of invention, to consult Gotou et al. for a particular surfactant structure. Moreover, Gotou et al. teaches the benefits of using such a particular surfactant.
Regarding claim 15:
Ueki et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 14, and Gotou et al. also disclose that, in Formula 3, a is 0 (paragraph 157, b is in a range of from 1 to 15 (paragraph 157), m is in a range of from 1 to 10 (paragraph 157), and n is in a range of from 1 to 5 (paragraph 157).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2006/0238588 A1) disclose an ink set (TABLE 1) comprising first and second inks having a dynamic surface tension values at 10 ms and 1000 ms (TABLE 2).
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Douglas 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
