Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/670,157

TEXTILE PRINTING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING TEXTILE PRINTED MATERIAL

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 21, 2024
Examiner
RICHMOND, SCOTT A.
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Riso Kagaku Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
548 granted / 624 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
652
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 624 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . This office action is in response to applicants arguments dated 19 February 2026. Claims 1 and 4 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2023-085122 was received on 07 July 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings filed on 21 May 2024 are accepted. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al. (US PGPub 2020/0276849 A1), hereinafter Urano, in view of Hong (US PGPub 2021/0107291 A1). With regard to Claim 1, Urano discloses a textile printing apparatus (¶0024-0027; Abstract) comprising: a base forming ink head that discharges a base forming ink onto a base material to which a pretreatment liquid has been applied (¶0097; Figs. 1-3; ¶0223+); wherein the base forming ink head discharges the base forming ink that contains a resin having a film elongation of more than 1000% (¶0049-0050, water-dispersible resin Superflex 740 may be used, ¶0155-0156, water-dispersible resin as using in pretreatment liquid A may be used), by a wet-on-wet method after application of the pretreatment liquid (¶0282, wet-on-wet method preferable conducted for application of pretreatment and inkjet ink to the substrate). Urano does not explicitly disclose a leveler that levels the base forming ink discharged on the base material; and an image forming ink head that discharges an image forming ink onto the base material on which the base forming ink has been leveled. The secondary reference of Hong discloses a leveler that levels the base forming ink discharged on the base material (¶0042, pretreatment device 70; ¶0040, Fig. 4, smoothening mechanism 30; ¶0052-0057); and an image forming ink head that discharges an image forming ink onto the base material on which the base forming ink has been leveled (second digital jet printing mechanism 20; Fig. 4; ¶0042, 0052-0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the leveler of Hong, with the printing apparatus of Urano, in order to have better clarity of the printed patterns, and increase printing quality, as taught by Hong (Abstract; ¶0005). With regard to Claim 4, Urano discloses a method for producing a textile printed material (¶0024-0027; Abstract), the method comprising: applying a pretreatment liquid to a base material (Abstract); discharging a base forming ink onto the base material to which the pretreatment liquid has been applied (¶0097; Figs. 1-3; ¶0223+); wherein the discharging includes discharging the base forming ink that contains a resin having a film elongation of more than 1000% (¶0049-0050, water-dispersible resin Superflex 740 may be used, ¶0155-0156, water-dispersible resin as using in pretreatment liquid A may be used), by a wet-on-wet method after application of the pretreatment liquid (¶0282, wet-on-wet method preferable conducted for application of pretreatment and inkjet ink to the substrate). Urano does not explicitly disclose leveling the base forming ink discharged onto the base material (¶0042, pretreatment device 70; ¶0040, Fig. 4, smoothening mechanism 30; ¶0052-0057); and discharging an image forming ink onto the base material on which the base forming ink has been leveled (second digital jet printing mechanism 20; Fig. 4; ¶0042, 0052-0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the leveler of Hong, with the printing apparatus of Urano, in order to have better clarity of the printed patterns, and increase printing quality, as taught by Hong (Abstract; ¶0005). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments, see pages 3-4, filed 19 February 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection applied to claims 1 and 4 in this office action. Conclusion 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 SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 21, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 29, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 29, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 19, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600151
CUTTER AND METHOD OF SEPARATION FOR SHEETS PRINTED FROM A CONTINUOUS WEB SUSCEPTIBLE OF LONGITUDINAL DIVISIONS AND RELATIVE WEB
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594773
INKJET PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594765
PRINTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589600
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PRINTING ON TILTED PRINT MEDIUM USING PRINTHEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589603
PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+5.9%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 624 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month