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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 3, claiming “The ink jet ink according to claim 2, wherein a proportion of the content of the organic solvent A in a total content of the organic solvent A and the organic solvent B is in a range of 5% by mass to 50% by mass.”
Applicant claiming same limitation in claim 1 also. Appropriate correction needed.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutaki et al. (# US 2018/0265724) in view of Yamamoto et al. (# US 2016/0215152) and Shiraki (# WO 2020/179313) for English translation Examiner used Shiraki (# US 2021/0363365).
Mizutaki et al. discloses:
1. An ink jet ink (see Abstract) comprising:
Water ([0062]);
an organic solvent A having a surface tension of 20.0 mN/m to 29.0 mN/m (20 to 30 mN/m; [0061]) and a boiling point of 80° C. to 140° C. (Solvent B; boiling point less than 225 °C; [0057]), and
an organic solvent B having a boiling point of 150° C. to 250° C. (solvent A, boiling point 225 °C or more; [0051]),
wherein a content of the organic solvent A is in a range of 1% by mass to 20% by mass with respect to a total amount of the inkjet ink (Solvent B, 1% by mass or less; [0057]),
the content of the organic solvent A relative to the total content of the organic solvent A and the organic solvent B is in a range of 5% by mass to 50% by mass (i.e. Solvent B is 1% and solvent A is 10%, so % is 9% [0057]; [0052]).
the proportion of the total content of the organic solvent A and the organic solvent B in the total content of all the organic solvents comprised in the ink jet ink is 80% by mass or greater (see Examples; see Table 2).
Given that the Mizutaki et al. reference discloses a range of surface tension, boiling point, and amount of solvent that overlap with the presently claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught ranges, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276,205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclose by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
2. The ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein a content of the organic solvent B is in a range of 10% by mass to 35% by mass with respect to the total amount of the ink jet ink (Solvent A; 7 to 20%; [0052]).
3. The ink jet ink according to claim 2, wherein a proportion of the content of the organic solvent A in a total content of the organic solvent A and the organic solvent B is in a range of 5% by mass to 50% by mass (i.e. Solvent B is 1% and solvent A is 10%, so % is 9% [0057]; [0052]).
4. The ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein a proportion of the content of the organic solvent A in a total content of the organic solvent A and the organic solvent B is in a range of 15% by mass to 30% by mass (see Table: 2).
7. The ink jet ink according to claim 1, further comprising: a silicone-based surfactant ([0007]; [0064]-[0065]).
8. An image recording method comprising: applying the ink jet ink according to claim 1 onto a base material using an ink jet recording method, to record an image ([0070]-[0076]).
9. The ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the proportion of the total content of the organic solvent A and the organic solvent B in the total content of all the organic solvents comprised in the ink jet ink is 90% by mass or greater (see Examples; see Table 2).
Mizutaki et al. explicitly did not discloses:
1. Solvent A has a Clog P value of 0.10 to 1.60; and a dynamic surface tension of the ink jet ink at 10 ms is in a range of 28.0 mN/m to 38.0 mN/m.
5. The ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent A is a monoalcohol having 4 or 5 carbon atoms.
6. The ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent A is a linear monoalcohol.
Yamamoto et al. teaches that to have the high quality uniform glossy printed image ([0019]-[0021]; [0079]),
a dynamic surface tension of the ink jet ink at 10 ms is in a range of 28.0 mN/m to 38.0 mN/m (40 mN/m or less; [0019]; [0056]; [0078]-[0079]).
5. The ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent A is a monoalcohol having 4 or 5 carbon atoms ([0069]).
6. The ink jet ink according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent A is a linear monoalcohol ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the ink composition of Mizutaki et al. by the aforementioned teaching of Yamamoto et al. in order to have the high quality uniform glossy printed image.
Shiraki teaches to have the ink composition with excellent storage stability, the ink composition comprises Solvent A has a Clog P value of 0.10 to 1.60 (0.5 to 3.5; [0167]-[0169]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the ink composition of Mizutaki et al. by the aforementioned teaching of Shiraki in order to have the ink composition with excellent storage stability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANISH S SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2152. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
MANISH S. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights