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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 1201057 A (Dec. 9, 1998) with Machine translation.
Machine translated CN teaches an ink composition comprising 0.1-20 wt.% of a colorant, 0.001 to 40 wt.% of a polymer dispersant, 40-99 wt.% of an aqueous carrier and 1-60 wt.% a co-solvent mixture comprising C2-C6 alkane diol in claim 1. Machine translated CN teaches that the co-solvent comprises 1,3-propylene glycol, 1,4-butanediol and 1,5-pentanediol in claim 15 meeting the recited high-boiling organic solvent of claims 1-3.
Thus, claims 1-3 lack novelty.
Regarding claim 4, the ink composition of examples 1-8 taught in CN do not comprise organic solvent having a boiling point of 140oC or less.
Regarding claim 5, Machine translated CN teaches polymeric dispersants include acrylic acid or methacrylic acid alkyl esters in a third paragraph from bottom of page 3.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, 4 or 3 wt.% of carbon black taught in examples 1-8 of CN and Machine translated CN meet claims 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 8, 1 wt.% of terpolymer comprising methacrylic acid, monomethacryloxypropyl terminated polydimethylsiloxane and stearyl methacrylate (i.e., polymeric dispersant) used in example 1 of CN and Machine translated CN meets claim 8.
Regarding claims 9-12, an ink composition taught in examples 1-8 of CN and Machine translated CN meet claims 9-12 and the recited “comprising” of claim 1 would permit other ingredient such as polyethylene glycol (MW=400). Thus, examples 1-8 of CN and Machine translated CN meet claim 9-12.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappele et al. (US 5,656,071).
Kappele et al. teach an ink composition comprising 4 wt.% of carbon black (i.e., pigment), 1 wt.% of terpolymer (i.e., polymeric dispersant), 10 wt.% polyethylene glycol (MW=400), 10 wt.% of 1,3-propanediol and 75 wt.% of DI water in example 1 and 1,3-propanediol has a boiling point of 211-217oC inherently. Further, Kappele et al. teach utilization of an alternative 1,4 butanediol in abstract. The water and 1,3-propanediol would be a continuous phase and the carbon black would be dispersed as solids in the continuous phase inherently as evidenced by a disclosure in lines 26-29 of col. 3.
Further the recited “comprising” of claim 1 would permit other ingredients such as the polyethylene glycol (MW=400). The transitional term “comprising” is an “open” term, in the sense that it leaves the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients, “even in major amounts.” Ex parte Davis and Tuukkanen, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (BPAI 1948). MPEP 2111.03. See also North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamide Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1585 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Because the term “comprising” is one of enlargement, it can cause a claim to be broader than the invention. See In re Fenton, 451 F.2d 640, 642 (CCPA 1971).
Thus, claim 1 lacks novelty.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, 1,3-propanediol and 1,4-butanediol meet claims 2 and 3. Further, Kappele et al. teach other organic solvents such as furfuryl alcohol, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether, pyrrolidone and dimethyl sulfoxide in lines 20-38 of col. 9.
Regarding claim 4, the ink composition of example 1 does not comprise organic solvent having a boiling point of 140oC or less.
Regarding claim 5, Kappele et al. teach polymeric dispersants include homopolymer and copolymers comprising alkyl acrylic or methacrylic acid ester in lines 33-54 of col.3.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, 4 wt.% of carbon black (i.e., pigment) used in example 1 of Kappele et al. meet claims 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 8, 1 wt.% of terpolymer (i.e., polymeric dispersant) used in example 1 of Kappele et al. meets claim 8.
Regarding claims 9-12, an ink composition taught in example 1 of Kappele et al. meet claims 9-12 and the recited “comprising” of claim 1 would permit other ingredient such as polyethylene glycol (MW=400). Thus, example 1 of Kappele et al. meets claim 9-12.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0933406 B1 (Dec. 1, 2005).
EP teaches an ink composition comprising 2 wt.% of C.I. pigment, 1.5 wt.% of styrene/acrylic copolymer (i.e., polymeric dispersant), a mixture of high boiling solvent comprising glycerin, diethylene glycol and 2-pyrrolidone and pure water in example A1 of page 13. Further the recited “comprising” of claim 1 would permit other ingredients such as Surfynol 465 (i.e., surfactant).
Thus, claim 1 lacks novelty.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, glycerin, diethylene glycol and 2-pyrrolidone meet claims 2 and 3. Further EP teaches other high-boiling solvents in [0103].
Regarding claim 4, the ink composition of example A1 does not comprise organic solvent having a boiling point of 140oC or less.
Regarding claim 5, styrene/acrylic copolymer meets acrylate copolymer. Further EP teaches polymeric dispersants in [0080].
Regarding claims 6 and 7, 2 wt.% of C.I. pigment used in example A1 of EP meets claims 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 8, 1.5 wt.% of styrene/acrylic copolymer (i.e., polymeric dispersant) used in example A1 of EP meets claim 8.
Regarding claims 9-12, an ink composition taught in example A1 of EP meets claims 9-12 and the recited “comprising” of claim 1 would permit other ingredients such as Surfynol 465 (i.e., surfactant). Thus, example A1 of EP meets claim 9-12.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1201057 A (Dec. 9, 1998) with Machine translation or Kappele et al. (US 5,656,071) or EP 0933406 B1 (Dec. 1, 2005) in view of Machine translated JP 2004223846 A (Aug. 12, 2004).
Further regarding the recited acrylate polymer of claim 5, Machine translated JP teaches various polymeric dispersants such as polyacrylic acid, acrylic acid-acrylate copolymer in an upper portion of page 8.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known polymeric dispersants such as polyacrylic acid, acrylic acid-acrylate copolymer taught by Machine translated JP in CN or Kappele et al., or EP or WO since all teach utilization of the polymeric dispersant in an ink composition absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
CLAIM ALLOWANCE
Method claims 13-20 are allowed.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Although Kappele et al. (US 5,656,071) teach that the ink composition of the present invention may be prepared by any method known in the art for making such compositions in lines 34-36 of col. 11, the Examiner was unable to find a reference teaching or suggesting the instant method.
Machine translated CN 108368369 B (Feb. 11, 2022) teaches a method of obtaining an ink composition comprising i) obtaining a polymer solution in MEK as organic solvent, ii) adding ion exchanged water. Iii) adding pigment and iv) removing MEK (B.P. = about 80oC) in Embodiment 1 of pages 26-27. Thus, it fails to teach at least the instant step of obtaining a polymer solution in high-boiling organic solvents having a boiling point of about 145oC to about 400oC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
