DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (2022/0348778) in view of Discekici et al. (2023/0063606).
Regarding claim 1, Ozawa teaches an ink set comprising
an inkjet ink ([0016]); and
a recording head filling liquid,
wherein the inkjet ink contains a pigment ([0017]), a pigment coating resin ([0021]), an aqueous medium ([0017], water), a nonionic polymeric surfactant ([0047], [0063], Olfine D-10PG), and a specific glycol ether ([0040]),
the specific glycol ether is triethylene glycol monobutyl ether or diethylene glycol monobutyl ether ([0040], triethylene glycol monobutyl ether),
the nonionic polymeric surfactant has a mass average molecular weight of at least 6500 and no greater than 10,500 ([0063], note that Olfine D-10PG meets the limitation),
the recording head filling liquid contains a specific moisturizing agent ([0074], anti-drying agent) and water ([0072]).
Ozawa does not teach wherein the specific moisturizing agent is a compound represented by general formula (1) below, H₂CO(C₂H₄O)a-H (1) H₂C-O-(C₂H₄O)c where in the general formula (1), a, b, and C each represent, independently of one 20 another, an integer of at least 1 and a + b + c is at least 4 and no greater than 20. Discekici teaches a moisturizing agent that meets the limitation (Discekici, [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the moisturizing agent formulation disclosed by Discekici in the filling liquid disclosed by Ozawa because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. That is, while Ozawa discloses that its filling liquid can have a moisturizing agent, it doesn’t go into any detail about such a formulation, and this it would have been obvious to look to Discekici for such details.
Examiner is aware the Discekici’s moisturizing agent is that of an ink, not a filling liquid. Regardless, such a moisturizing agent could have been added to any number of liquids including the filling liquid disclosed by Ozawa.
Regarding claim 2, Ozawa in view of Discekici teaches the ink set according to claim 1, wherein the nonionic polymeric surfactant has a percentage content of at least 0.2% by mass and no greater than 0.9% by mass in the inkjet ink (Ozawa, see Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ozawa in view of Discekici teaches the ink set according to claim 1, wherein the specific glycol ether has a percentage content of at least 1.0% by mass and no greater than 6.0% by mass in the inkjet ink (Ozawa, see Table 2, Note content of triethylene glycol monobutyl ether).
Regarding claim 4, Ozawa in view of Discekici teaches the ink set according to claim 1. Ozawa in view of Discekici does not expressly teach wherein the specific moisturizing agent has a percentage content of at least 16.0% by mass and no greater than 41.0% by mass in the recording head filling liquid. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, all of the general conditions of the claim are present, and a range of content of the moisturizing agent has been added, but the claimed range is not inventive
Regarding claim 5, Ozawa in view of Discekici teaches the ink set according to claim 1, wherein the specific moisturizing agent has a viscosity at 25°C of at least 260 mPa sand no greater than 450 mPa-s (Discekici, [0043], Note that the chemical formula is the same as that claimed, and thus it is taken as inherent within the reference that the viscosity is also the same).
Regarding claim 6, Ozawa in view of Discekici teaches the ink set according to claim 1, wherein the nonionic polymeric surfactant is a copolymer including a repeating unit derived from (meth)acrylic acid polyalkylene glycol alkyl ether, and a repeating unit derived from (meth)acrylic acid alkyl ester (Ozawa, [0063], note that Olfine D-10PG meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Ozawa in view of Discekici teaches the ink set according to claim 6, wherein the nonionic polymeric surfactant is a copolymer including a repeating unit derived from polyethylene glycol methyl ether acrylate, a repeating unit derived from butyl acrylate, a repeating unit derived from polypropylene glycol methyl ether acrylate, a repeating unit derived from lauryl acrylate, and a repeating unit derived from methyl methacrylate, or a copolymer including a repeating unit derived from polyethylene 25 glycol methyl ether acrylate, a repeating unit derived from ethyl acrylate, a repeating unit derived from polypropylene glycol methyl ether acrylate, a repeating unit derived from lauryl methacrylate, and a repeating unit derived from methyl methacrylate (Ozawa, [0063], note that Olfine D-10PG meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 8, Ozawa in view of Discekici teaches the ink set according to claim 1, wherein in the general formula (1), a + b + c is at least 6 and no greater than 18 (Discekici, [0043], Note that a+b+c = 15).
Regarding claim 9, Ozawa in view of Discekici teaches the ink set according to claim 1, wherein the recording head filling liquid is used to fill a recording head with the inkjet ink remaining therein (Ozawa, [0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Discekici.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights