DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 3/26/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1, 4, 5, 7-20 are pending, claims 2, 3 and 6 are cancelled and claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoffel et al (US Publication 20060075925).
Stoffel discloses an ink set providing reduced differential lightfade and graininess (abs). The ink set may include pigmentated inks of at least one of a cyan, yellow, magenta dark inkjet and at least one of a cyan, yellow or magenta light inkjet ink. A dark black or light black inkjet may also be present in the ink set (paragraphs 12- 13). Stoffel teaches that the red ink can be Pigment Red 254 (paragraph 28) as well as Pigment red 122 (paragraph 20) and since the ink can have both of these inks, they would be considered to be different from each other. The term for printing on a plastic foil is an intended use limitation and the ink set of Stoffel is capable of being printed on a plastic substrate. Stoffel is silent to the specifics of the ink.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stoffel and formed the ink to have at least one cyan, yellow, magenta and black ink within the inkjet ink wherein on ink had Pigment Red 254 and the other had Pigment red 122 as Stoffel teaches the use of all of these colors when forming the ink and one would know how to adjust the color of the ink to form an aesthetically pleasing image.
As to claims 4-5, Stoffel teaches that the red ink can be Pigment Red 254 (paragraph 28) which has a hue angled in the range claimed in claim 4, and Pigment red 122 (paragraph 20) which has a hue angle in the range as claimed within claim 5 as these are the same materials used within the invention.
As to claim 7, Stoffel teaches that the yellow ink can be pigment yellow 110 (paragraph 20).
As to claim 8, Stoffel teaches that the ink can comprise phthalocyanine blues or greens (paragraph 19).
As to claims 9 and 10, Stoffel teaches that the ink can comprise a light black ink and a dark black ink (paragraph 48), wherein carbon black can be used as the black ink (paragraph 18).
As to claims 11 and 12, Stoffel teaches that the loading of the dark ink has a high colorant loading and light ink has a low colorant loading. The dark ink can have a loading amount of 1 to 10 by weight of the dark ink, wherein the light ink has a loading in the range of 5 to 50% by weight of the dark ink (paragraph 11). However, this reference is silent to the range of having the second black comprise a pigment load of .1 to 2% based on the total weight of the second black ink.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stoffel and had the second black ink (light black ink) be in a range of .1 to 2 % based on a total weight of the black ink as it has a low colorant loading amount and Stoffel teaches having overlapping ranges wherein if the dark pigment is loaded in an amount of 1% by weight of dark pigment, the light ink can be 50% of the dark ink by weight which, would be .5% loading of the light ink. Further one would know how to adjust the loading amount of the inks to provide reduced differential lightfade and graininess (paragraph 11).
As to claim 13, Stoffel discloses that the inks can be water soluble inks (paragraphs 41 and 48) and therefore would be considered water-based.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that that both inks contain pigment red 254 and therefore fails to meet claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the claim comprises open language and would allow the inks to contain pigments that overlap. The ink of Stoffel could contain an ink that includes pigment Red 254 and an ink that includes Pigment 122 as it teaches these inks are suitable inks used when forming the ink. Further the plastic substate is an intended use limitation and the ink of Stoffel would be capable of being printed on a plastic substrate.
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 CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights