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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes Applicant has cancelled claims 2-3.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection for the independent claim does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant arguments regarding dependent claims are also now moot, given they are based on an independent claim 1 that has new grounds of rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 & 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160319147 A1; herein referred to “Chen”).
With respect to Claim 1, Chen teaches a binder (i.e., binder used in an inkjet ink set; Chen: Abstract) for aqueous inkjet inks (i.e., ink may include water; Chen: ¶0021) comprising:
a composite resin (A) (i.e., “anionic polyurethane acrylic hybrid binder”; Chen: ¶0048); and
an aqueous medium (B) (i.e. water used in anionic polyurethane acrylic hybrid polymer binder; Chen: ¶0049; water may also be used as the fluid vehicles in Chen’s inkjet ink and in Chen’s post treatment liquid used for inkjet ink; Chen: ¶0021 & ¶0042),
the composite resin (A) forming core-shell-type particles (i.e., “anionic polyurethane acrylic hybrid binder” with core and shell; Chen: ¶0048) having a shell part containing a polyurethane (a1) (i.e., “polyurethane polymer may be the shell”; Chen: ¶0048) having acid groups (i.e., “anionic polyurethane polymer” with an acid number from about 15 mg KOH/g to about 150 mg KOH/g; Chen: ¶0067 & Table 1) and a core part containing an acrylic polymer (a2) (i.e., “acrylic polymer or copolymer may be the core”; Chen: ¶0048),
wherein a monomer raw material of the acrylic polymer (a2) comprises (Chen: ¶0069-0070)
an alkyl (meth) acrylate having a total carbon number of 4 to 10 (i.e., “methyl methacrylate”; Chen: ¶0069-0070). Methyl methacrylate has a total carbon number of five, which falls within the claimed range.
and a hydroxy group-containing (meth) acrylate (i.e., “hydroxyethyl acrylate”; Chen: ¶0069-0070),
wherein the alkyl (meth) acrylate is methyl methacrylate (i.e., “methyl methacrylate”; Chen: ¶0069-0070),
wherein the hydroxy group-containing (meth) acrylate is 2-hydroxyethyl (meth) acrylate (i.e., “hydroxyethyl acrylate”; Chen: ¶0069-0070),
wherein a glass transition temperature of the acrylic polymer (a2) is 20°C to 110°C (i.e., “ranges -30°C to 100°C; Chen: ¶0069). Chen teaches a range that overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
and wherein an acid value of the polyurethane (a1) is 10 to 30 mg KOH/g (i.e., 15 mg KOH/g to 150 mg KOH/g; Chen: ¶0067). Chen teaches a range that overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to Claim 4, Chen teaches the binder (i.e., binder used in an inkjet ink set; Chen: Abstract) for aqueous inkjet inks (i.e., ink may include water; Chen: ¶0021) according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio (a1/a2) of the polyurethane (a1) to the acrylic polymer (a2) is 95/5 to 50/50 (i.e., 50/50; Chen: ¶0048). Chen teaches a range that overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to Claim 5, Chen teaches an aqueous inkjet ink comprising the binder for aqueous inkjet inks according to claim 1 (i.e., ink composition which comprises “water, the pigment, and an anionic polymer that disperses the pigment”, such as the “anionic polyurethane acrylic hybrid binder”; Chen: ¶0025 & ¶0047-0048). Chen does not preclude the binder from being used within an aqueous inkjet ink, but does acknowledge that smaller quantities of the binder would be used within an ink compared to the binder’s mass percentage within a post-treatment liquid (¶0047-0048).
With respect to Claim 6, Chen teaches a printed layer (i.e., depositing ink onto a medium; Chen: ¶0075-0078) formed by the aqueous inkjet ink according to claim 5 (i.e., aqueous inkjet ink; Chen: ¶0021, 0025, & 0047-0048).
With respect to Claim 7, Chen teaches the binder (i.e., binder used in an inkjet ink set; Chen: Abstract) for aqueous inkjet inks (i.e., ink may include water; Chen: ¶0021) according to claim 1, wherein the glass transition temperature of the acrylic polymer (a2) is 78°C to 110°C (i.e., -30 °C to 100°C; Chen: ¶0069). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
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 SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 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, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights