DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/5/2026. Applicant traverses the Requirement for Restriction on the grounds that Groups A and B lack unity of invention. Applicant points out that many of the same features are required by both inventions. While that may be true, Examiner points to the fact that the invention according to Group A deals exclusively with the composition and chemical properties of an ink set, and the invention according to Group B deals with a substrate material, a surface energy and a curing of ink, none of which are shared technical features with Group A.
Applicant further traverses the Requirement for Election of Species on the basis that Examiner did not offer evidence with regard to why it is believed that the species are not so linked so as to form a single general inventive concept. Further, Applicant argues a serious burden has not been established. Examiner maintains that simply by virtue of the multitude of mutually exclusive formulations listed, a serious burden has indeed been established and each of those multitude do not represent a single general inventive concept.
The standing Requirement is maintained.
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 defining at least two different phases 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).
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.
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 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 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