DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites wherein the two different heteropolymers are “physically separated from each other” and points to Figure 2 of the present invention for support. While the intention of the claimed language is understood, it does not appear the two different heteropolymers are separated from each other as a region of one of the heteropolymers is directly in contact with a region of the other of the heteropolymer and thus does not seem to be separated but rather in contact. Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar et al. (2023/0095396).
Regarding claim 1, Bar teaches an inkjet fluid set, comprising:
a pre-treatment fluid ([0041]) including:
a first aqueous vehicle ([0041]); and
a water resistance and adhesion promoting cationic polymer ([0050], Raycat 78) dissolved or dispersed in the first aqueous vehicle ([0041], note that the cationic polymer is dissolved in the aqueous vehicle); and
an inkjet ink ([0068]) including:
a second aqueous vehicle ([0069]);
a pigment ([0084]) dispersed throughout the second aqueous vehicle ([0085]); and
multi-phase latex particles ([0073]) dispersed throughout the second aqueous vehicle, each multi-phase latex particle including at least two different heteropolymers that are physically separated from each other and define to be “physically separated from” any other single compound of cyclohexyl methacrylate).
While Bar does not expressly teach specifically selecting those two heteropolymers among all of its suggested heteropolymers, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a combination of those two heteropolymers because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results. In other words, all components of the claimed invention are disclosed by Bar, and thus one of skill would have found any number of combinations in the multitude of combinations disclosed by Bar obvious to try.
Regarding claim 2, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 1, wherein a weight average 15 molecular weight of the water resistance and adhesion promoting cationic polymer ranges from about 1,000 g/mol to about 500,000 g/mol (Note that Raycat 78 is the same cationic polymer disclosed in the immediate specification and thus necessarily meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 1, wherein the water resistance and adhesion promoting cationic polymer is present in the pre-treatment fluid in an amount ranging from about 1 wt% active to about 10 wt% active based on a total weight of the pre-treatment fluid (Note that Raycat 78 is the same cationic polymer disclosed in the immediate specification and thus necessarily meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 1, wherein the adhesion promoting cationic polymer is selected from the group consisting of a copolymer including an epihalohydrin and an amine; an acrylic emulsion polymer having quaternary and tertiary amine groups; a polycarbodiimide; and combinations thereof (Note that Raycat 78 is the same cationic polymer disclosed in the immediate specification and thus necessarily meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 1, wherein the first aqueous vehicle includes water, a co-solvent, and a surfactant ([0056], [0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 1, further comprising an overcoat fluid ([0103]).
Regarding claim 7, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 1, further comprising a second cationic polymer dissolved in the first aqueous vehicle ([0050], Note that the formulation accounts for one “or more” cationic polymers in addition to the above cited Raycat 78).
Regarding claim 8, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 1, wherein the at least two different heteropolymers of the multi-phase latex particles are selected such that:
a cumulative percentage of any heteropolymers of the at least two different heteropolymers having a glass transition temperature (Tg) ranging from 15°C to 75°C ranges from about 30 wt% to about 70 wt% of the total weight of the multi-phase latex particle (note that methyl methacrylate meets the Tg limitation);
a cumulative percentage of any heteropolymers of the at least two different heteropolymers having a glass transition temperature (Tg) greater than 75°C is greater than 30 wt% of the total weight of the multi-phase latex particle (note that cyclohexyl methacrylate meets the Tg limitation); and
a cumulative percentage of an aromatic group monomer in the multi-phase latex particle composition is less than 10 wt% of the total weight of the multi-phase latex particle ([0073], Note that a first of the two different heteropolymers is being defined as methyl methacrylate, and a second of the two different heteropolymers is being defined as cyclohexyl methacrylate, and note that the two selected heteropolymers meet the glass transition temperature limitations).
Bar does not expressly teach wherein a cumulative percentage of any heteropolymers of the at least two different heteropolymers including less than 30% of a C6 or greater (meth)acrylate monomer ranges from about 20 wt% to about 80 wt% of a total weight of the multi-phase latex particle. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches all of the limitations other than a specific amount of the cyclohexyl methacrylate in the multi-phase latex particle, but the content range seems to have been arrived upon by routine experimentation and thus is not inventive.
Regarding claim 9, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 8, wherein: a first heteropolymer of the at least two different heteropolymers in the inkjet ink has the Tg 25 ranging from 15°C to 75°C (note that methyl methacrylate meets the limitation); and a second heteropolymer of the at least two different heteropolymers in the inkjet ink has the Tg greater than 75°C (Note that cyclohexyl methacrylate meets the limitation).
Bar does not expressly teach wherein a cumulative percentage of any heteropolymers of the at least two different heteropolymers including less than 30% of a C6 or greater (meth)acrylate monomer ranges from about 20 wt% to about 80 wt% of a total weight of the multi-phase latex particle. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches all of the limitations other than a specific amount of the cyclohexyl methacrylate in the multi-phase latex particle, but the content range seems to have been arrived upon by routine experimentation and thus is not inventive.
Regarding claim 10, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 8, wherein: a first heteropolymer of the at least two different heteropolymers in the inkjet ink includes greater than 30% of the C6 or greater (meth)acrylate monomer and has the Tg ranging from 15°C to 75°C; and a second heteropolymer of the at least two different heteropolymers in the inkjet ink includes less than 30% of the C6 or greater (meth)acrylate monomer and has the Tg greater than 75°C (Note that methy methacrylate and cyclohexyl methacrylate meet the Tg limitations).
Bar does not expressly teach wherein a cumulative percentage of any heteropolymers of the at least two different heteropolymers including less than 30% of a C6 or greater (meth)acrylate monomer ranges from about 20 wt% to about 80 wt% of a total weight of the multi-phase latex particle. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches all of the limitations other than a specific amount of the cyclohexyl methacrylate in the multi-phase latex particle, but the content range seems to have been arrived upon by routine experimentation and thus is not inventive.
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) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar in view of Stubbs et al. (2022/0073769).
Regarding claims 16-19, Bar teaches the inkjet fluid set as defined in claim 1. Bar does not teach the limitations of claims 16-19. Stubbs teaches these (Stubbs, see fig. 1, Note all multi-phase arrangements disclosed meet all of the limitations). 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 multi-phase arrangements disclosed by Stubbs for the latex heteropolymers disclosed by Bar because doing so would allow for printing with good water-fastness and resistance to rubbing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the composition of the ink set, but the amendment does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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